Microsoft Offers ActiBlizz Remedies To EU, Deadline Pushed Back Yet Again

What is the timeline on the UK and US sides? I wonder if they can seal this in 2023.

At this rate this will go down as the longest running soap opera ever in the UK, hope it gets voted for the soap awards this year along side East Enders etc.

@BrilliantBill pretty sure everyone wants to see how MS fairs in court in the US.

@mousieone So expect another delay or two because the FTC isn't even talking about it until August. 😂

From what I am reading the concessions offered to the EU only includes access to Activision content, including cod, on rival cloud platforms.

"More striking is the absence of any formal commitment to address key concerns raised by rival Sony about the deal's impact on its PlayStation, and Google about the deal's impact on its ChromeOS cloud-first operating system."

According to reports, Sonys complaints of removal or degrading of cod on PlayStation "appears to have fallen on deaf ears at the EU competition enforcer"

The support of Nvidia was a key factor apparently

The EU have until 22 May to rule on the deal, however a draft decision will be circulated internally and to national authorities soon.

This is all just from reports I have read this afternoon after work. All eyes on the CMA it seems, who are still the final boss in all of this

Honestly can't wait for this ***** to all be done either way it's ***** boring now.

@Kaloudz I believe that what they mean is that the European Comission is not worried about competition in the console business. Sony could not convince them that the merger would be detrimental for their console business.

However, the EC is worried about cloud gaming market. Although that's a small market now, we don't know if in five, ten, years time it will be the a big deal for gaming, and with Microsoft having a killer app such as Call of Duty exclusive to their own cloud platform, the governments are worried that Xbox could build a monopoly there.

That's why Microsoft is addressing those concerns by offering 10 year deals to put CoD on competing cloud streaming services.

@Dezzy70 We need to get a statement on this from Susan Lucci to make that work, but I think it's doable. Can we get John O'Hurley? He's done a video game VA work for at least Sponge Bob, it's valid.

@Kaloudz Basically it means the EC is not picking up what Sony was putting down and is not really concerned about the effect on PS, they're only really worried about a cloud service monopoly, not hurting Sony.

As a result of that, plus tons of bad blood from the whole thing, MS cut Sony out of the bargains for the EC. They therefore Microsoft submitted the nVidia, and Ubitus/Boosteroid, (and Nintendo for good measure?) contracts as their remedy, no promises to EC regulators about Sony. So basically if approved on this, as far as EC is concerned, CoD could skip PlayStation and that's just fine.

Now before anyone flips out, CMA will probably end up requiring them to address Sony since they seem to only care about Sony, so it's probably immaterial for gamers at large, and acts more as a public middle finger toward Jimbo than anything else. But as far as EC is concerned it seems like Sony's angle doesn't matter to them anymore, they just want to be sure the cloud market isn't 1-sided now. Sony boasting weeks ago about 80% marketshare in Europe may have something to do with that....

FFS just make a decision!!!

The EC has apparently narrowed its concerns to cloud gaming. Sony overplayed its hand there.

Ouch.

@Kaloudz EU no longer seems to care about Sony losing CoD, either because they think it’s overstated, because they believe it would believe it would not be financially viable for Xbox to make the game exclusive, because the game will be on Switch in the future, or who knows, they just no longer seem to think that’s a significant factor.

Sony just wants delay this process as long as possible. UK is sonys home turf and it's showing. Although the khan led FTC is also using sonys talking points. Just a clown show. Just shows these regulators know nothing about game industry.

@Kaloudz it’s bad news for Sony. The EC see the acquisition as fair in regard to the console market.

‘We don’t want a cod deal, we just want to stop your merger’

Well if Microsoft can put concessions forward in regard to cloud gaming that the EC find acceptable, the deal will go through. Sonys main goal was to stifle competition and cement their market dominance, this is a huge blow to that goal.

@fizban3332
Xbox does good in UK, probably second only to the USA if you go by head count.
In the 360 days Xbox was massive in the UK.

Right now:
FTC: We want to see Sony's rhetoric laid bare.
EU: We want to know XBOX are willing to expand ABK's reach.
CMA: We want Sony to have the best deal possible.

In a few months...
FTC: Approved. Sony's been sabotaging things since Day 1.
EU: Approved. The contracts and remedies offered are well within our allowances.
CMA: Denied. Sony feel that...
FTC/EU: Excuse me? Who do you work for?!

@Kaloudz there is a chance that EC just changed their mind based on what Microsoft already has done with CoD, so they might simply be satisfied. Hard to know the real reason they no longer care but it’s posible CMA will also be satisfied in the end.

Who has more weight? EC covers all of the EU, CMA only covers UK. If worst come to worse, and MS is persistent enough, they can just go ahead and work some legal stuff to keep ABK within the EU as an independent entity for as long as any trial has to go through.

At the end no one can dictate global behaviors, it just happens to be hard for regional solutions to not impact global markets due to the removal of region locking in the last generations.

But we could see an extreme case were the acquisition goes through, and all games go into game pass, but only outside the UK.

Destin in YouTube had an interesting interview last week(?) with a guest that explained one potential legal strategy Xbox could take should it come to that.

@fizban3332 FTC didn't even correctly use Sony's talking points. They definitely have their own agenda that only loosely crosses' Sony's. They're using Sony for their goals as much as Sony's trying to use them.

@Kaloudz Yeah, in the past they usually aligned. This time around FTC doesn't seem to care about ANY market or industry's demands they're just interested in their politically affiliated anti-big-tech agenda. CMA seems to basically just ask Jim what they should say next, and EC basically just confirmed they feel PS is secure enough, doesn't matter, they're worried about streaming. It's quite a rift!

EC is consistent though, they didn't think Bethesda games leaving Sony was important before, and they don't think ABK games leaving Sony is important now. And when FTC tried to use "MS lied to EC with Bethesda", EC shot them down and said there were no promises and it wasn't important in their decision.

My personal take is that EC rightly sees that PS is more or less a console market monopoly in their Jurisdiction (if they didn't see it, Sony outright stated it recently) and rightfully knows, in their jurisdiction, there's no "anti-competitive" argument in favor of Sony that could be made as they already are the market. I'm guessing they see "streaming" (as a total market competitive force) as the important balance to Sony's dominance in Europe vs "Microsoft" as a specific entity and thus want to prevent that from being as lopsided as console became there.

For FTC it's important to remember that the FTC (internal) court is not strictly speaking the same entity as the FTC commissioners. The commissioners are on an agenda. The court wants to see Sony's records on the matter... The commissioners are political appointees, while the court is under judiciary.

@NEStalgia
Well I’m sure between us we can get it work and some sort of soap opera or maybe drama award.

Off subject, Xbox need to get series x re stocking again in a major UK chain, they out of stock in about 80% of stores after very good after Christmas stocks.

I can't wait until this deal is finished with so Microsoft can get back to ensuring that they have varied game portfolio which they are currently sorely lacking.

@Kaloudz The FTC is not being quite, they are suing, and just demanded Microsoft to turn over tons of documentation about next gen hardware and any plans for all future Zenimax games, among ton other things.

The thing is, the FTC does not have the power to block, they have the power to approve. If they seek to block, they need to do so through court, and courts are likely going to side with Microsoft, therefore... everyone is dismissing anything the FTC says unless its interesting.

@Moonglow
I’m not sure being honest.
I just think they just need to make more and get more stock. Just one of those things.
The chip shortage etc is still about or back log of manufacturing. I mean in the UK you can still wait 6 to 9 months for a new car to be delivered.

@Moonglow
Well three major stores low or out of series x solo console in the UK, my one is getting stock early next week.
It seems a lot of series x consoles were used in the new Forza Horizon 5 bundles, of which some are still available.
Should be restocked next week with solo series x, so that’s good.

How does it take them this long to decide if it's okay for Sony to have any competition? What a joke regulators have become. They were supposed to oppose companies like Sony, not side with them.

@Kaloudz Sony exaggerated the harm if any it would have on consoles.

@Kaloudz Yeah it's awkward with ftc. You have commission that's political apparatchiks, but they can't go anything but sue, but they know it'll never get blocked in actual court, so they filled it in their own internal court which is still less political than the commissioners but also can't actually do anything but sue more, so their whole angle is try to stall it forever. But then it goes to the real court that guaranteed will approve. So Ms can safely ignore anything they say because in the end it goes to real court that will approve it anyway.

@Dezzy70 OMG he's now reporting there's no Xboxes on shelves! That's it. Nintendoomed, Xbox is monopoly, Sony needs bodyguards.

@NEStalgia
I say it as it is in real life.
Also live from the shop shelves and up to date 😆

That’s why since I’ve been doing the shop shelves and review counts things I have started to disbelieve these analysts sales figures each week and month, they don’t seem to tally up to me.

Anyway it won’t be long now in the UK and it will start to get to the 6 month quiet period as the summer approaches. I think now stock is relatively good overall the buying habits will be seasonal this year in the UK.

@Kaloudz Sony’s laughable complaints claiming Microsoft will deliberately cripple COD on PlayStation etc have been thrown out by the EU competition commission, because they were a joke, so they are happy with the 10 year deal being offered.
The regulators are now doing their job in the EU and looking for guarantees over future markets for fair competition and that’s in cloud gaming, they don’t care about Sonys dominant market leading position as they shouldn’t do.

@fizban3332 That’s false actually, the split for Sony and Xbox is a bit more even then many think, including the CMA, it considering that’s British Government Civil Service staff it’s not really surprising the bias they have, they literally have no clue what they are talking about, making claims what the technical abilities of the Switch are even, and they probably asked their children for advice.

@Kaloudz The issue is the 'Monopoly' on Cloud Gaming services - not necessarily the Console Market where Sony and Nintendo all have a 'Strong' instal base, strong first party content and MS had stated they intended to keep CoD on all current Hardware but maybe could Monopolise Cloud gaming.

There is NO evidence to suggest that Sony's 'claims' of incentive to Pull CoD and/or any evidence to suggest MS would 'jeopardise' their own Reputation, their studios reputation etc by deliberately releasing a sub-standard version to force people to leave. However, there was NO evidence to support the claims that CoD could be used to monopolise Streaming so nVidia, Boosteroid and Ubitus deals are much more important.

As for Sony's claims, whilst they do have a Professional reason to take Sony's issues seriously and investigate everything, its also got to take into consideration Sony's position as a Market Leader, as someone with their OWN interests in mind as 'market leader, as the dominant Console etc, not what's best for consumers/gamers/competitors etc. If they are the ONLY opposition, but Nintendo/Valve are Happy and MS will release on PC/Xbox regardless, so that's pretty much ALL Physical Hardware and therefore Sony will still 'get' CoD, no evidence to support their claim MS will either Pull or sabotage their 'customers' (as they will be Customers of MS's Game) would be affected or that MS had the 'power' to raise prices significantly as 'competition' from Sony/Nintendo/Steam and other gaming providers would 'force' MS to remain competitive in pricing - especially as it was Sony using their 'Dominant' position to increase prices, forcing gamers to spend $10 more for the SAME game, same content/story/game-play loop etc knowing people will Pay to play ONLY on Playstation games.

The ONLY real area was the lack of Competition from Streaming services - which to be honest are very much in its infancy but feared that a high profile IP like CoD would be detrimental to Competition and their chance to build up their own service to compete. Therefore this was a much more 'critical' area for MS to demonstrate its pledge to bring CoD to more Streaming Services to show it isn't monopolising Streaming services.

If the 'vast' majority do 'stream' like they do music/TV/Video for convenience/cost reasons - not 'Premium' gamers who want Hardware for 'premium' Quality gaming, they wanted to see that Game Pass was NOT the ONLY option as they know you could 'buy' on multiple hardware platforms, but only Game Pass seemed to offer a Subscription/Streaming service for CoD - hence MS also stating that they would be happy to negotiate with Sony 'terms' to put it into their own PS+ service too and have a Contract waiting.

I don't see how a good gaming company like Blizzard needs to be bought by Microsoft...

@Kaloudz I think they should approve the deal and would be 'surprised' if they don't. As we have seen, it seems ONLY Sony opposed to the deal but 6 UK Game companies have issued statements in support of the deal and now with legally binding 'deals' in place to bring CoD to more people, not just MS's word, I really cannot see how they can still be on the fence and/or will block.

However, that doesn't mean that they won't, but I think they would be 'ridiculed' and/or would certainly lose in court - it just depends on how 'difficult' they want to be to a 'big' tech giant more than whether they have a 'legitimate' argument.

This deal doesn't reduce the number of Gaming Platforms on the Market or would suddenly give Xbox a massive advantage over ALL the other platforms available, wouldn't make Xbox the 'biggest' player in the Market, wouldn't give them a monopoly on gaming as there are hundreds of other studios, so many games available every week releasing that MS doesn't own/control and as big as CoD is, its not a 'Must Have' or your 'doomed' - ask Nintendo that have competed well without it...

Whether the CMA/FTC/EU rely on the Evidence which heavily implies that the deal should go through without Concessions as it really doesn't give MS a 'Monopoly' on Gaming, can't suddenly raise prices (as gamers would go elsewhere - PS5, Steam, Nintendo etc), won't suddenly 'dominate' the Console Market etc, or choose to ignore it to make things 'more' difficult, delay the inevitable etc who knows - but I am sure that 'eventually' the deal will go through because MS has stated clearly that they are willing to go to court if they want to go that route...

It seems as though the FTC/EU/CMA 'know' they aren't in a good position to 'block' so are 'delaying' to see which may try 'first', find something that they haven't etc but I think that if one passes it with Concessions, then the rest will accept whatever concessions they managed to extract. Arguably these 'deals' are 'pointless' as MS was promising long term CoD access prior to 'formally' offering legally binding Contracts - which also puts pressure on CMA/EU/FTC to 'pass' by the way as these deals ONLY apply if MS take over. Those Governing Bodies would have to explain to nVidia, Nintendo, Boosteroid & Ubitus, their Customers why they have 'Blocked' their access to CoD....

@Kaloudz As I said, it really does depend on what 'technicality' they feel they can 'block' if they choose to and all that would happen if they did would be that the deal would still complete - but in the UK ONLY, CoD might be published by A/B as a 'shell' company in the UK, available to BUY only on Xbox/PC/PS (not on Nintendo, nVidia GeForce or any other Platform or on Game Pass) until its 'resolved' in court which can take up to 3yrs.

Of course, if the rest of the world approve, that all helps MS long term. That's more 'weight' of evidence, support/backing etc to bring to Court to fight the CMA's ruling. Lets be honest here, the CMA can call on Sony and Google - two companies with their own self interests and market domination to protect vs MS, A/B, ALL the other Publishers, Studio's, Platforms and Governmental reports that have assessed and passed the deal.

How bad would it look for the CMA if they are the ONLY body to block the Deal in the UK, affecting the UK market for MS and any plans to bring A/B games to 'more' gamers? If they do 'block', it just means that MS can't 'honour' deals in that area - such as with Nintendo or nVidia, probably can't bring CoD to Game Pass day and date in the UK etc until its 'resolved'. A/B would likely be a 'shell' publisher to Publish in the UK (where its Published by MS everywhere else) and only be SOLD on Xbox/PC/PS as it currently is...

Come 2024 though when Sony's deal with 'A/B' expires, that could be the 'last' CoD on PS in the UK as Sony has 'no' deal with A/B anymore, can't make a deal with A/B as its a 'shell' company and the CMA can't force them to 'keep' releasing games in the UK on specific platforms where NO Contract or guarantees are given having 'blocked' those from going through in the UK.