Microsoft Likely To Offer EU Concessions Soon in Activision Deal

Microsoft is likely to offer remedies to EU antitrust regulators in the coming weeks to stave off formal objections to its $69 billion bid for "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard, Reuters reported Monday, citing people familiar with the matter. From the report: The U.S. software giant and Xbox maker announced the deal in January to help it compete better with leaders Tencent and Sony. It has since then faced regulatory headwinds in the European Union, Britain and in the United States, with Sony criticising the deal and even calling for a regulatory veto.

The deadline for the European Commission, which is investigating the deal, to set out a formal list of competition concerns known as a statement of objection is in January. Offering remedies before such a document is issued could shorten the regulatory process. [...] Microsoft's remedy would consist mainly of a 10-year licensing deal to Playstation owner Sony, another person with direct knowledge said.

10 years...

[zlives]

should be sufficient time for cod to die off completly

Re:10 years...

[DarkRookie2]

If it hasn't yet, I doubt it will. CoD at this point is like Madden and FIFA. There is a large group of idiots who will just buy those games each and every year regardless of quality.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

The problem is not CoD. Microsoft would be an idiot to walk away from millions of dollars in revenue by not offering CoD for PlayStation. I believe the numbers are such that CoD for Playstation makes more money than CoD for Xbox. Microsoft may be dumb, but to throw more than half your revenue away is stupid.

The problem is Sony doesn't want to pay Microsoft. It's a Japanese thing in not wanting to help your competitor, and the thought that Sony would write a cheque to Microsoft for anything is so abhorrent t

Correct link

[jkipk]

Here's the actual link to the Reuters post https://www.reuters.com/market... [reuters.com]

I still don't know why they have a say in it.

[sabbede]

One American company is looking to buy another American company. America's anti-trust regulators have looked at it. Why should other countries, let alone associations of other countries, have any say on what two American companies do in America?

Re:

[Muros]

Because this is not one American company buying another American company. This is one transnational company headquartered in America buying another transnational company headquartered in America.

Re:

[gweihir]

Simple: Regulators wherever they do business have a say. That is just a fundamental legal principle: Do something in a country, be subject to the laws there. Not hard to understand, is it? So if MS and Activision-Blizzard stopped doing any business in the EU, the EU regulator would not have a say anymore. That will of course not be happening.

Re:

[sabbede]

Yes, a nation's regulators have a legitimate role in regulating business conducted in that nation. But this isn't business being conducted in the EU, it's being conducted in the US. If Microsoft was buying a French company, it would be a different situation.