
The UK CMA has today published a new report on its ongoing investigation into Xbox's ActiBlizz deal, and there's a lot to unpack here in regards to the likelihood of the purchase actually going through. While there are plenty of wrinkles to this report, much of the focus is once again centred around Call of Duty.
The authority believes that if the deal goes ahead, it could harm competition surrounding both cloud gaming and traditional gaming markets. The CMA then goes on to put forward a few suggestions for how the deal could be altered to help it gain regulatory approval. Here are some potential "structural remedies":
- Separating and selling off the 'Call of Duty' part of the business
- Separating the 'Activision' and 'Blizzard' segments and potentially selling one or both parts off.
As mentioned, the CMA refers to such suggestions as 'structural remedies', like selling off CoD or other parts of the ActiBlizz business. However, the authority says that 'behavioural remedies' could also work, like making certain games & IP multiplatform in future even if they're under Microsoft ownership.
Of course, we also know that Xbox has put forward a 10-year commitment to keeping Call of Duty on other platforms, and the CMA says that such commitments will be looked at during the next 'remedies' phase, rather than this initial assessment.
So for now, any CMA suggestions are just that, and Microsoft has time to respond to these findings with its own ways of helping the deal go through. Given how major Call of Duty is to the overall Activision Blizzard business, we're not entirely sure how splitting that off and selling it would work out.
Other sections of this latest CMA report also state that the deal could harm the gaming market by reducing competition between Xbox and PlayStation. We have more on that element of the report down below.
Will this deal ever happen? Let us know where you think things are heading down below.
[source gov.uk]
Comments 86
They should do it…and then buy the marketing rights to cod and put their own customers first by forgetting ‘parity’ nonsense and offering all the exclusive benefits PlayStation players have been enjoying for the last decade. As well as ensuring it still comes to gamepass day 1.
Ezpz solution that makes everybody happy, right?
Of course they do..... 🤣🤣
This is beyond a farce.
It took them months to figure out something that's already been solved? Great Gov't oversight. What a giant redundacy-burger.
@Kaloudz and that's just COD players, the vast majority of PS gamers don't even play COD, so overall that's a pretty small amount. Even if you removed COD today from Playstation I doubt it'd make much difference to their sales
wouldn't spinning CoD off into it's own company leave it at massive risk of being influenced by platform holders anyway, they'd be able to secure exclusivity through "support effectively" Sure Sony or MS wouldn't own CoD but they could pay development in exchange for a year exclusivity.
@Kaloudz isn't 24% of players moving to Xbox the perfect outcome for the CMA? PlayStation are currently outselling Xbox 2:1 - a loss of 24% of PlayStation users would bring the market share to 51/49 in favour of Sony.
OK, sure. Split it up and just buy COD. That would make "lyin' flyin'" Jim Ryan - "cryin'" Jim Ryan.
So if I read this right, COD goes to a third party company, the deal goes through completely?
If I were Microsoft (spoiler: I'm not), I'd back out of the deal and just pay Activision for 12 months of timed CoD exclusivity each year. I'd also get Phil to make a *****-post on twitter along the lines of:
"We offered 10 years of CoD parity to Sony who sadly declined the offer and instead sought to block the ActiBliz deal. We've re-evaluated the proposed acquisition and instead have opted to take a leaf from the Sony playbook - I'm happy to announce that moving forward all call of duty titles will enjoy 12 month console exclusivity on Xbox platforms and gamepass."
Sony are so pathetic. I wouldnt buy anything from them ever again
If they split it up then MS should then just buy Blizzard.
Xbox shouldnt need ABK to compete. They have way more developers, teams studios than competition and has already bought 1 major publisher. Mismanagement poor nurturing of its own studios continues
Why doesn’t Xbox start some shell-gamestudios? Name them Rizzard, FactiBlision and Ring Studios. Hire all key personel from the acti-blizzard studios and start some new ip’s like RarCraft, Miablo and Fall of Mutty?
The danger is escalation. Sony have their finger hovering over the 'buy Square Enix' button as we speak. If the AB deal goes through then nobody can complain about anything costing less.
@carlos82 “Even if you removed COD today from Playstation I doubt it'd make much difference to their sales”
Well Sony completely disagree, that’s the only reason they’re trying to stop the acquisition.
"Separating and selling off the 'Call of Duty' part of the business"
ok just buy call of duty then Microsoft and then make it exclusive
While I do not like all these purchases by MS or Sony, I prefer these studios remain independent. Especially since MS seems to have away of destroying them and mismanaging them. The whole Halo thing for example.
I just cant believe all this over COD which to me is just a generic game.
That said MS needs something. I have rarely played my Xbox this year at all because it completely lacks games. They really need this to stay competitive.
That said I really think this is all about gamepass and still feel MS wants out of the console business to just focus and gamepass and software. I think it is their long term goal.
@Rmg0731 most of the developers that Microsoft owns is way smaller than Sony‘s. It takes roughly 300 to 400 developers to make a AAA title within two years.
within two years Microsoft is actually released a ton of their first party titles. It’s just the majority of Microsoft games are multi platform, because Microsoft is friendlier with their IP’s than Sony. Two of the IP’s were already in agreement with Sony.
Minecraft dungeons, Psychonauts 2, Deathloop, ghost wire, Minecraft legends, Microsoft flight simulator, the big expansions for elder scrolls online, expansions to fallout 76, expansion to two worlds, NexGen upgrade to Skyrim, and more
Sony owns five studios that are 400 and more developers within one studio. Bungie is between 800 and 900
Microsoft has one studio around 400. Correction they laid people off, it’s smaller now.
Divesting of CoD would mean divesting of the mobile offering that is a significant chunk of the stated goal of acquiring ABK for mobile presence, so I doubt they would agree with it even if it was possible.
It's just not a viable option, though, since the IP alone is too intertwined with every single studio, even Blizzard segments work on the development of Call of Duty. There is no way to carve out CoD or ABK without hurting the future of Call of Duty, and of course, separating Activision from the deal would likely cut the actual buying price in half.
Its just not the same as other past mergers where the CMA or EU suggested divestment of easily isolated entity segments.
@mousieone Ignoring the fact that it's a financially infeasible and nonsensical option? Yep.
@NEStalgia maybe but I think from the statement this are just the proposed options. The CMA seems to want to actual make the deal work, unlike the FTC. MS lawyers just needs to figure out how to do it with this framework. That’s what they are paid for.
But it’s just funny that it is all about COD. Meaning any other acquisition is fine as long as the company doesn’t have an IP as big as COD. It’s laughable really. COD COD COD
@mousieone what’s really funny is, that in order for call of duty to be what it is, It Has to stay multi platform. If I was Microsoft, I would say that a perfect example of us keeping games multi platform Minecraft. It’s consistent on everything.
Microsoft could’ve easily made Minecraft exclusive, but it would get rid of why Minecraft is as big as it is.
And the regulators definition of a monopoly Sony‘s already done every single one of them matter fact they wanted video games to go up to 80 bucks not just 70. Sony has already announced that they’re making profit on their consoles and shortly after that, they announced that they were putting in a cheaper heatsink. then a few months later they announce they’re putting in an even more cheaper heat sink.
> However, the authority says that 'behavioural remedies' could also work, like making certain games & IP multiplatform in future even if they're under Microsoft ownership.
With 250 million players or so, it wouldn't be hard to convince Microsoft to adopt this approach because it woukd maximize profits. But what really boggles the mind about all ofthis is the implied belief that CoD will always be one of the most popular games available.
@mousieone
I think it's obvious why: because it's the only thing Sony cares about. They are terrified of MS controlling the CoD IP, even in a scenario where CoD still ships to PlayStation.
@Neither_scene That would be a terrible move for MS and Activision and cost them both so much money.
Better idea: They buy CoD only, Sony won't care about the rest of Activision, then buy the rest of Activision w/o their resistance.
@Tharsman @NEStalgia I just find the obsession cute. At the end of the day it shows you what really makes money..
Xbox already has plenty at its disposal to compete with Sony.
It also has the jump on every other company regarding game subscription services. This deal will ensure Xbox dominates.
Be safer for cod if Microsoft doesn’t own it. Look at halo.
Keep the studios sell the call of duty franchise to tencent. Release a yearly exclusive called hail of valor.
@Savage_Joe every time a newsbite comes out on this sale it triggers some.
@Somebody I 99% agree but I would actually sell it to Amazon because Amazon only makes PC games.
@mousieone Oh absolutely. This doc seems basically like a delayed outline of the ORIGINAL reason for raising the investigation and isn't the result of the actual investigation itself, it doesn't even consider the existing proposed remedies, and the outlined remedies seem like boiler plate type solutions proposed that don't even take the specifics into account. It's not the result of particular discussions or considerations at all, just the stock starting point document. It's like an email response that just says "I read your email", delivered 5 months later....
The real discussion is yet to happen. We may or may not have interstellar travel available by the time that happens.
But yeah, it's hilarious that it's still nothing but CoD. Sony only cares about CoD, UK only cares about CoD, EU only cares about CoD. FTC cares only about November 2024, and has no idea what a CoD is. Fans are like "What about Spyro and Diablo, PS needs this!" and all the above just ignore them and keep on keeping on.
@Sam_TSM what I find bizarre in this whole discussion is that call of duty is probably the least innovative game made now bar FIFA, yet people are moaning about it being stifled...
@Kaloudz 'When we say equal, we mean equal. 10 years of parity. On content. On pricing. On features. On quality. On playability.' ... I'm calling bs on that as games are abit cheaper on pc so unless they plan on putting prices down on consoles or up on pc (which I doubt) that's not true
@dreadful nah you’ve got it a wrong. Sony aren’t pathetic…they’re protecting their interests and winning. IT’s Microsoft and Xbox that are pathetic! Bending over backwards at the expense of what’s best for their own customers - US!
This is a company that could buy Sony ten times over…yet bending at the knee. When all they need do is pay for exclusivity deals and drain them dry…for far less money than 68billion.
But Phil told us from the start that Sony aren’t their direct competition. And Xbox have been telling us for years they don’t particularly care about their console or those that invest their hard earned money in it.
So maybe it’s us that are really the pathetic ones…trying to convince ourselves MS care about gaming and it’s community because we fell for buying the £500 box.
@Would_you_kindly and also no online paywall. It’s all *****
This reminds me of a similar situation with the company I work for. We merged with a major competitor, but the CMA said that the UK arm couldn't merge because of the lack of competition. They've now been spun off as a new company and can't compete with us because they have access to very little of the things that the big companies do (such as capital), and that business will probably be on shaky ground in 12-18 months time.
Spin COD off on its own and it's got to keep 3-4 developers going at the same time with 1-2 games being released a year. It generates massive amounts of money now, but a couple of dodgy games and all those developers go to the wall
@Bleachedsmiles yeah that aswell will be interesting to see if they get any flack for charging less on pc for games they own than they do on their own consoles although I bet they'll get a pass because gamepass lol
Probably waiting for a back hander, most corrupt UK government in history.
@Kaloudz they didn't do the next gen tax on most pc games so like £10
@Would_you_kindly PC games won’t go up in price, because PC gamers actually have some balls and won’t pay any old Willy nilly price and will potentially just find the game they want somewhere to download for free.
Console gamers are MUCH easier to milk.
@Fenbops well yeah I know that it's just that Microsoft will say about how their all about what's best for the consumer & even what I replied to they mentioned complete parity for 10 years between Nintendo Xbox playstation & steam but we all know games will be cheaper on pc & have no online paywall & they already are but when it's Microsoft owned games Xbox players should call them out on it
@Would_you_kindly I agree. Same over on the other side didn’t they release TLOU on PC for £50 not long after releasing the £70 PS5 version.
@Fenbops it released on ps5 for £70 on September 2nd & releases for pc on march 28th for £50
They propose nothing. It's going through.
@Would_you_kindly yeah it’s sad on both sides. I do prefer Sonys strategy of releasing exclusives on console then later on PC though. They keep their base somewhat happy and haven’t diminished the feeling of their exclusives on console too much. It’s a happy medium I feel.
But but ... it wasn't about Call Of Duty ... So the Sony influenced Saga continues. I wonder what will happen if this deal will NOT go through? To all parties! I doubt MS will be the biggest corporate loser ...
One idea for the impartial regulators, why don't Microsoft launch Call of Duty multiplatform as they say they will but keep exclusive content and early access on Xbox platforms? That way they would mirror Sony's fair stance on multiplatform parity and availability and everybody will be happy.
@Moonglow The FTC lost in court again, this time against Meta. The judge refused to allow the FTC's injunction based on Metas evidence of why they should be allowed to close their deal to buy the developers of Supernatural. Based on that I'd say the FTCs chances of blocking this ABK acquisition don't look very good at all.
@Deshalu the difference is Sony buy devs and invest in them an make them wat they are today. Microsoft simply want to throw their cash about an buy already huge, established devs. If MS buy Activision will they improve COD? Will they add anything? No it’ll be the same game made by the same people but now owned by MS.
Its interesting how generally one sided Xbox owners are because they only see an opportunity for 'free COD' but never thinking the whole on-going process is designed to, rightly or wrongly, protect gamers.
As an owner of a Series X I view this as say Sony wanting to buy Rockstar and take GTA or EA and take FIFA and the CMA saying it is damaging to gamers to allow such a huge component of the gaming industry being exclusive. I can imagine 95% of PureXbox members would support the CMA in that scenario. Wouldn't they? I know I would.
I seriously do think MS not buying ActiBlizz is better for the industry the way Sony not buying Rockstar or EA would be too.
@shred5 thats the way of gaming but yall keep saying mismanaging, id say non managing, they seem to buy companies then let them do thier thing with no pressure...will we be saying this if redfall, and starfield are smashing success.. no we will say glad they allowed Bethesda to take their time and get it right. if im being honest i think beforre Phil took over i dont think many projects were in the works so i personally i believe their developers are now just playing catch up not to forget covid most likely slowed everything down... the old head of xbox had his head up his ass and didnt know what he was doing, 3 projects i know of had to be cancelled after Phill took over due to them not rerally being good... Just feels like this year if all the games dont get delayed is the year MS starts to get their 1st and 2nd party games in line and going.....
@Blessed_Koz Too hands off is still mismanagement. No matter the problems there is something wrong. I think Starfield will sell well no matter what because people with Xbox have had a drought for about a year and will buy it. I hope they do well because I am a gamer and I have barely played my Xbox since picking it up other than It Takes Two because it was on gamepass. I am just starting to feel like I wasted my money on gamepass too.
@jordan1992 Enough with this tired argument. So short-sighted. You realize that Microsoft has had the longest relationship with Bethesda based on the fact that Bethesda made games for PC only in the beginning and had Xbox exclusives. Remember Morrowind? You don't think Microsoft invested and had a strong relationship with Bethesda just like Sony did with some of the companies they bought? This notion that only Sony does this is utter rubbish. Here is an article from Polygon that may help you better understand the facts:
https://www.polygon.com/2020/9/21/21449184/microsoft-buys-bethesda-timeline-history-morrowind-oblivion-skyrim-fallout-e3-todd-howard
@Blessed_Koz
You know I will say this I think the Activblizzard deal is becoming way to big of a distraction. MS should just drop it and all this money they are spending to fight it pump the money into Activision and just sign agreements for exclusives. Both companies win. Activision get a infusion of money and MS gets some exclusives. they are spending way to much time and money on it.
@RadioHedgeFund I can't remember the last time I've played a SquareEnix game. Wouldn't bother me one bit.
@jordan1992 Sony started at a different time. Sony is way developed before Microsoft even came along. You can’t compare the two.
Sony was already developed monopoly before Microsoft even started.
Developers aren’t doing well. That’s why when one closes two more open, you gotta have that instant hit.
Xbox has IPs but the original developers are gone. You can’t just tell developers to start working on this ip, there never as good as the original dev. Example Halo and PlayStation side Socom- the game was not the same.
Plus isn’t Sony buying devs? You’re not complaining about them buying developers and they’ve closed down a bunch of devs Zipper Interactive, Incognito, and many more.
Sony fanboys are such hypocrites
I like the buying of developers on all sides. It makes better competition and better games. The PS3 era was night and day better than PS4. 360 made Sony compete, think about how many new and old Sony ips came out on the PS3 compared to the PS4. Do not count remakes or remastered titles
@cburg and which Bethesda games have Xbox staff made since the acquisition? Oh, that’d be none.
@Deshalu Sony buy devs, invest and make master class games. MS wanna buy already huge, established devs, keep them exactly the same makin the same games an call them Xbox games.
@jordan1992 you guys act like naughty dog was a scrub company when Sony bought them
@Deshalu before Sony bought thrm they made Crash Bandicoot. Made games for the Apple 2 before that. Now, since Sony bought them they make AAA GOTY contending games. Hardly the same as buying a dev who make one of the biggest games on the planet!!
@jordan1992 Crash during that time, was a AAA title. Lol
MMolecule studios little big planet before they were bought, that’s not a triple A title? Get out of here. They made a little big planet in 2008 before Sony bought them in 2010.
Plenty more examples if you want me to keep going
Sony didn’t make them AAA studios they made themselves AAA and then Sony bought them.
@Deshalu did Naughty Dog have more success before or after Sony acquired them?
@Deshalu and Little Big Planet was made specifically for Playstation, the game did well so Sony bought them.
@jordan1992 i’m lost by your statement here just because they were bought, They weren’t going to continue to grow and make better games? It doesn’t erase the fact that they were already making AAA games before they were bought bud.
And naughty dog made games for more than just Apple, they made web games, Sega games, and 3DO console before PlayStation
Also
Naughty Dog also has almost 40 years of experience versus somebody like 343 Industries who has maybe 15 years
@jordan1992 little big planet company still wasn’t owned by PlayStation, so your argument has no bearings. They were AAA studio before they were bought. Lol
@Deshalu because of one game??? 🤦♂️🤦♂️
@Deshalu ya comparing Little Big Planet to COD!! 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️😂😂😂😂
@jordan1992 when did I compare little big planet to cod?
You’re losing this argument so you making things up? Gotcha, or did you forget what we’re talking about? Little Big Planet being a AAA title, which it is
Sony has bought made studios
@Deshalu my original point, try stickin to the subject! I said Sony bought little known devs, invested an turned out GOTY contendin games! MS just wanna buy huge, already established dev an turn their 3rd party games exclusive. Then you rattled in sayin Sony did the same with Little Big Planet!
@jordan1992 last I checked the little big planet dev was known before sony bought them. Stick with me
Plus Microsoft has to buy well-known ips to be able to complete with a company that’s been around a generation and a half before they came around. Sony and Nintendo established fan base doesn’t let others in (money is a key factor)
Competition is a good thing, but I feel like that’s what you guys are losing sigh of. It goes back to my comment about the PS3 versus the PS4 era and like of first party games new and old ips not including remakes or remasters
I’m a little lost in why this is a bad thing because call of duty is still coming out on PlayStation.
@jordan1992 at the end of the day one thing you and I can both agree on is, we both love gaming.
Think about the 360 and PS3 era, both was killing it with good quality games. Now again, think about the PS3 versus the PS4 era. Write down all of the first party, IP’s new and old do not include remakes or remasters. The PS3 was killing it because they had competition. You’ll find that there’s a big difference
@Deshalu until MS decide otherwise. They said Bethesda title would come to PS, they lied.
@Deshalu an i think PS4 is the best gen yet for quality of games. TLOU 2, Uncharted 4, God of War 2018, Days Gone, Spiderman, Ghost of Tsushima, etc.
And the argument MS need to do this as PS has been around longer is nonsense. If MS released games on a par with PS exclusives they’d close the gap. If a new console came out tomo, lets say a Play Box, an in 1 year had 5 exclusives that were stated as the best games even an this continued they’d catch up soon enough.
@jordan1992 you got to have the quality developers. If you haven’t noticed the quality developers are all tied up. Plus a lot of companies aren’t going to sign up with Microsoft because they haven’t really been successful like PlayStation has.
You can’t just magically make a gem developer there’s a reason they’re called gems
there was way more exclusives that released during the PS3 era then the PS4. They even release their older ips twisted metal, Warhawk, socom, and more. New ips during ps3 uncharted, the last of us, resistance, Little Big, planet, demon souls, PlayStation all-stars, lair, and more
Also, Microsoft never lied about Bethesda. If you go find interviews, the exact words used was existing IPs would remain on PlayStation.
Which they’ve kept their word. The word you was looking for is franchise. Elder scrolls six was not an existing IP yet.
@Deshalu quantity over quality. PS3 did have TLOU which imo is number 1 but that also came to PS4. And you can make a gem developer, Sony did it. Since Sony acquired them every game Naughty Dog has made has been GOTY quality. And microsoft said they’d allow certain new Bethesda games on Playstation. Then they announced Starfield was exclusive an PS has had nothing since.
@jordan1992 whatever naughty dog was already talented and you’re crazy
The PS3 had a lot of quality games with quantity.
what kind of Bethesda games do you think that allow? not single player games, they only allow live service games if that.
Either way, Microsoft didn’t lie about Bethesda
@jordan1992 and they’ve kept their word about not limiting games to one platform.
All Microsoft games are on PC, Xbox, TVs, cell phones, Steamdeck, and Nintendo when they allow it
I have yet to see Microsoft and or Phil Spencer lie this GEN
Sony on the other hand, is full of something. Sony said everything that started out on PlayStation years ago should stay on PlayStation because it was multi platform, that was their argument for call of duty, but Spider-Man has literally been on every platform ever made, Sony made it exclusive Haha
Either way, Microsoft isn’t going to make call of duty exclusive. So, let it go. Minecraft is still on everything, no limitations to Content, and or quality.
PC, TV’s, mobile phones, Steam Deck, Nintendo aren’t really competition for Xbox. Insomniac wanted Xbox to make a Spiderman game, it would have been Xbox exclusive. Microsoft said no, it won’t sell very well!! 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Sony said ok, the rest is history.
As for Naughty Dog they made games for Apple 2 originally. Then Crash Bandicoot which is good, then Sony bought them. Uncharted was their first game which is very good. Then came Uncharted 2 and 3 which were incredible!! Since then we’ve had Lost Legacy, Uncharted 4 and The Last of Us 1 and 2. TLOU 1 an 2, imo, are aguably the greatest story driven games ever made. Sony made Naughty Dog in to the dev they are today. Fact.
@Tharsman I mean they have reason to be, think about it Microsoft promised the same game experience day and day on switch meaning there is going to be some downgrades. There is a chance that it can be downgraded to the point where the game becomes unappealing to play. When a game becomes unappealing to play people look for a replacement. Looking at current shooters on the market Microsoft already has a shooter title they can funnel these players too. And considering the wording of the deal something tells me switch will also receive it if the next cod game is unappealing. And the thing is Microsoft do have a motive to degrade the quality of the cod franchise. As profitable as cod is they would make much more money if they got cod numbers on halo compared to cod. Not only would Microsoft have avoided the long payment patch from tryark to Activision blizzard to Microsoft but they would also get the switch market involved which is extra bank for them.
@CaptainRPG bit of a necro reply there but… those are quite silly takes. A switch version (unlikely to ever exist, by the time this deal kicks in the Switch successor will be out) would not be too different from the minimum spec PC version.
The reason Sony is terrified of Microsoft controlling the IP is because they can put it on GamePass and they won’t be able to negotiate more marketing and content exclusivity deals. Over time, PlayStation will no longer be the “default” when people think about playing CoD on a console. A Switch 2 version also means a third competitor for players.
@CaptainRPG I think you might have replied to the wrong Banjo....
Yep your right, wrong banjo. I'll just message them on discord sorry for getting you caught up in this mess.
@Tharsman the devils in the detail. Microsoft is claiming the full experience running on switch. Not the switch pro, switch 2, switch XL or switch successor. The switch the same console that has been out since 2017. everyone thinks that the next Nintendo console is just going to be a powerhouse to rival the ps5 and series systems. But you need to remember this is Nintendo the company who doesn't care what the fans think and will go off and do their own thing that their fans will eventually look at and say "ok it's not what I was wanting but I'll bite". Nintendo goes their own way. When Microsoft and Sony started to cut back on disc production Nintendo where there to say oh don't worry about this game we are shadow dropping tonight it will also get a physical copy in a weeks time. If Nintendo is getting cod on their system they are going to fight to the nail to make sure it's not a switch pro exclusive because they know that will isolate all 3 current switch owners which is where Nintendo is making most of their money.
Sorry about the rant. I love my switch and I would love to see it come to Nintendo platform but based on everything we currently know I think that this is impossible.
@CaptainRPG Microsoft never claims the Switch in their official announcement. They said “Nintendo” not “Switch”.
The successor is almost certainly arriving 2024, just in time for Sonys deal to end and any “10 year deal” to kick in.
Also go check the minimum requirement for CoD on PC. That game can run on minimum settings on a potato.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...