Microsoft's $69 Billion Activision Deal Faces EU Probe (bloomberg.com) 19
Microsoft's proposed $69 billion takeover of games developer Activision Blizzard faces an in-depth European Union probe after regulators said they're concerned the software giant could thwart access to blockbuster franchises such as Call of Duty. From a report: The European Commission said in a statement on Tuesday that Microsoft may "foreclose access to Activision Blizzard's console and PC video games, especially to high-profile and highly successful games." The EU's merger watchdog set a March 23 deadline for its so-called phase 2 investigation.
The combination with Activision -- which owns some of the most popular games also including World of Warcraft and Guitar Hero -- would make Microsoft the world's third-largest gaming company and boost the Xbox maker's roster of titles for its Game Pass subscribers. But the deal is already facing protracted scrutiny from antitrust agencies across the globe. Microsoft last month accused the UK's Competition and Markets Authority of relying on "self-serving" input from rival Sony Group in its deliberations. The US Federal Trade Commission is also reviewing the transaction, including looking into how it might impact workers.
The combination with Activision -- which owns some of the most popular games also including World of Warcraft and Guitar Hero -- would make Microsoft the world's third-largest gaming company and boost the Xbox maker's roster of titles for its Game Pass subscribers. But the deal is already facing protracted scrutiny from antitrust agencies across the globe. Microsoft last month accused the UK's Competition and Markets Authority of relying on "self-serving" input from rival Sony Group in its deliberations. The US Federal Trade Commission is also reviewing the transaction, including looking into how it might impact workers.
Guitar Hero (Score:2, Informative)
I think citing Guitar Hero as one of the most popular games shows how well these regulators understand the video game industry. The last Guitar Hero game was released 7 years and had underwhelming sales. The heyday of Guitar Hero was 15 years ago.
The whole thing is kind of weird. If CoD being multiplatform is that important, then why are timed exclusive deals and exclusive CoD content deals OK? I understand why Sony wants to make a stink about it, since it's clearly not good for them, but I don't unders
Re: (Score:2)
Sony has had the better exclusives for years and no one thought that was anti-competitive.
Opinions are like, well, opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Guitar Hero sold 1.53m copies, Guitar Hero II sold 3.1m, Guitar Hero III sold over 8m, and Guitar Hero World Tour sold 3.4 million. All four were critically acclaimed. Then the series declined with all of the many spinoffs and the general disfavor of rhythm games across the industry.
While these are far from the biggest selling hits and most critically acclaimed games, they're still very respectable. Calling the series one of the most popular is a stretch, but it's no question they are popular, period.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting Guitar Hero wasn't popular, rather that it isn't popular. And furthermore that by the EU citing the acquisition of Guitar Hero as a reason why it needs to review the purchase, they are essentially showing that they don't know what's going on in the video game industry.
It seems like all of the arguments revolve around CoD. If the deal closes next year, then how many years is it before CoD could be a Microsoft console exclusive? We're maybe looking at 2025 or later before that happens an
How virtuous. (Score:2)
Instead of hand-wringing about whether they might do it, just set some penalties if they do and then actually enforce them if it comes to pass. If this is the only specific concern, it seems simple to address. I don't think it's good for consumers in general, but if this is their best argument against then they're short on imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually working anti-trust requires a preventative component, not only a reactive one. Hence this inquiry.
Deal Encounters Pitfalls (Score:5, Interesting)
Any multi-billion dollar merger should be assumed to be bad for the market. It's hard to see how it wouldn't be a detriment to consumers and the level of competition in the industry, and that should be the starting point for regulators looking at the deal. I'm glad they're running into some pitfalls.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Call of Duty? (Score:2)
So I hope the EU comes out and says exactly how popular something must be to mandate it for cross platform. Hopefully they set the bar really low and Sony finally get fucked for their exclusive lock-in.
Bonus points if Epic games is found in breach too after years of bitching about Steam being popular.
Re:Call of Duty? (Score:4, Interesting)
Considering that call of duty has had sony exclusive (or timed exclusive) content to the detriment of all other platforms for at least the last two games, it being brought up may work in microsofts favour.
It seems like a really odd hill for sony to die on (they sent reps to the eu to help force this issue), considering that they are the worst offender by far and that blanket rules would shine light on their practices more than anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that call of duty has had sony exclusive (or timed exclusive) content to the detriment of all other platforms for at least the last two games, it being brought up may work in microsofts favour.
Why? They have their own franchises they haven't brought to Sony platforms [gematsu.com], like Halo and Forza. How is it in either Microsoft or Sony's best interest to open that debate, when they both have self-published platform exclusives? Answer, it absolutely is not, they both want to keep their exclusives and scrutiny like this threatens that.
Easy solution (Score:2)
Microsoft has already said it doesn't want to make Call of Duty exclusive to Microsoft platforms. Just agree to an enforceable undertaking with regulators in various countries whereby it agrees to continue releasing Call of Duty on PlayStation platforms such that the experience for PlayStation players is as good as the experience for Xbox and PC players.
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is that no merger of this size should be permitted because of the historical tendency towards fuckery in such cases, but they are trying to pin the whole story on one franchise as if it were what mattered. As usual they are understating the case. But by playing such games they undermine the whole concept of antitrust because the issues are so much bigger than they pretend, and people are lulled into thinking they aren't by these actions which deliberately miss the point in the hope of dick-riding
Does this mean I might see Pitfall on the Xbox? (Score:3)