The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) recently announced that over the course of a two-week window, it received a total of 2,100 public emails regarding Microsoft's planned acquisitiion of Activision Blizzard, of which around 75% were positive.
The regulator laid out a high-level view of the public's reasoning behind their responses and clarified that a small number of responses did not specify a clear view. It also confirms that responses containing abusive language, were blank, unintelligible, non-english, or from non-UK consumers were not factored into its findings.
Here's a sample of some of the responses in favour of the merger:
- Sony and Nintendo are stronger than Microsoft in console gaming, and the Merger will help Microsoft to compete more closely against them.
- The Merger will not harm rival consoles because Microsoft has made public and private commitments to keep Activision content, including Call of Duty, non-exclusive. The availability of Minecraft on rival consoles shows that Microsoft’s commercial strategy is not to make games exclusive.
- It is unlikely that Microsoft would make Call of Duty exclusive due to its multiplayer nature. Making Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox would only create a gap in the market that could be filled by a rival cross-platform shooter game.
- Call of Duty has competition from a number of other games including Battlefield (Electronic Arts), Grand Theft Auto (Take Two) and FIFA (Electronic Arts).
Meanwhile, here are a few that are against the merger:
- Microsoft is already dominant in PC operating systems, and this Merger is an attempt to gain a similar position in gaming.
- Microsoft has the resources to create an offering that competes with PlayStation exclusives without acquiring Activision.
- The Merger would lead to consolidation and would set a harmful precedent in the gaming industry of acquiring large publishers rather than encouraging organic growth.
- This would be the largest merger in gaming history, paving the way for a potential string of future acquisitions of publishers such as Take Two, EA, Ubisoft, thereby increasing concentration in the market.
It's important to note, of course, that this invitation took place prior to the announcement that Microsoft would enter a 10-year commitment with Nintendo to bring Call of Duty to its platforms should its planned acquisition go through. It's unclear whether this would have had any material impact on the CMA's findings, although if our recent poll is anything to go by, it seems our community is largely lukewarm on the whole prospect.
Are you for or against Microsoft's planned merger with Activision Blizzard? Will you be playing Call of Duty if it makes its way to Nintendo's platforms? Let us know!
[source assets.publishing.service.gov.uk, via gamesindustry.biz]
Comments 57
"The availability of Minecraft on rival consoles shows that Microsoft’s commercial strategy is not to make games exclusive." Er, Starfield anyone?
None of these responses sound like they were actually written by real people do they?
I'm pretty sure Microsoft will still want to sell CoD on Playstation while it sells 10 million copies. New ip I can understand being an exclusive to help build their brand etc, but software is where the money is and hamstringing a well known franchise would be crazy. Especially while they are wanting to recoup their money.
@Ooccoo_Jr Yeah, that one didn't make a whole lot of sense.
Isn't the UK one of the biggest markets for Xbox? The public response isn't very surprising in that case.
Microsoft's messaging is so backwards at times because they'll say we don't want exclusives and gaming is best when you get to play what you want wherever you want. But then up and makes Outer Worlds 2 (so far), Starfield, Redfall and Hellblade 2 exclusive and even rumors that ESVI will be as well. And this is 2 publishers in a row in as little as 2 years by the way.
@GrailUK I think that's absolutely right but Microsoft's problem is that they are always going to want to reserve the right for some point in the future to go exclusive if circumstances change. They will want the acquisition to go through but they can't afford to be hamstrung by making any legal promises that won't go exclusive. Also what about any spinoffs they choose to make? Would they have to be multiplat too? It could get very messy.
” It is unlikely that Microsoft would make Call of Duty exclusive due to its multiplayer nature. Making Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox would only create a gap in the market that could be filled by a rival cross-platform shooter game.”
Lol if they think that then i have a bridge to sell them. They absolutely are going to make COD xbox and PC only eventually. Microsoft doesn’t need Sony or Nintendo.
I am tired of the complaining I read everywhere on this topic. I see SIE in a very strong market position, and that’s why they show the typical Sony arrogance again. The stronger the direct competitors are, the more intense competition gets, the better for us customers. Just one example: I am convinced that we got the PS Plus Collection only because of Game Pass.
@MrHonest considering the Switch and PS5 are beyond outselling the Series X/S and the Xbone was a dud on arrival... Me thinks having COD on Switch and PlayStation is exactly what Microsoft needs to make this purchase worth while.
@Ooccoo_Jr It could only get as messy as SONY buying a company and making their games exclusive. I hate all this corporate positioning and much prefer Nintendo's approach of working with others but, I unfortunately can't see how Microsoft is doing anything wrong here (and believe me, I would love to.) other than 'but but CoD won't be on Playstation anymore.' Sony are going to have to adapt much like how SEGA and Nintendo had to. Unless world leaders come together and have a massive rethink about how everything works.
Against. Mergers and acquisitions are NEVER good for the customer.
It probably wasn't a very good idea to announce titles like Redfall, Hellblade 2, and Starfield as console exclusives prior to closing this deal, as it undercuts a lot of their 'good guy' rhetoric about not wanting to rob other platforms of games from the companies they acquire.
People with otherwise good intentions really do believe that corporate benevolence is the way forward, somehow.
As they should be. Activision-Blizzard is a toxic company and needs reform, which is something that I believe Microsoft can offer. Is Microsoft perfect? No company is perfect, but Microsoft has generally displayed a hands off approach to game development allowing dev teams to continue operating as is. Many cross platform titles have been released by their various studios, and fears that CoD will leave any platform are unfounded. Even if it does, there are other equally great cross platform franchises.
@MrHonest Yes, I am complaining. I don’t know whether the anti-fusioneers are the majority or the minority, but they are very vocal, and I want to act as a counterbalance to these complaints.
@Wilforce So one toxic company shall take over another toxic company? Hilarious.
The data source is emails received. This is just Xbox fans sending an email off the back of the articles in the news recently around the proposed acquisition being investigated.
So obviously the majority will be positive... This is one of those articles that starts to write a narrative but the narrative doesn't exist and it all ends up a misleading nonsense.
Honestly, microsoft I beleive is trying to push forward in gaming, and provide a better model with game pass however, the reason deals like these shouldn't go through is because of the potential. Just because xbox is nice now doesn't mean they always will be.
@steely_pete
Yes but PlayStation is much bigger in the U.K. than Xbox
its clear that Xbox would still sell CoD for $70 on other platforms, while adding it to Game Pass subscribers. That offers them an easy way to make a buck
And I despise Activision. They are harmful to the industry and offer no creativity. All they do is pop out CoD reskins every year and refuse to use any old IPs or make something new
@electrolite77
Is it? I was under the assumption that they were neck and neck.
The game industry is volatile. New studio's and IP get introduced all the time. The thinking that an acquisition of a publisher leads to less choice for other platforms is a short sighted one, because even if so on a short term, it opens up possibilities for others in the longer term.
There is no guarantee that franchises like Call of Duty remain to be as relevant as they are today. Even now Activision had made it clear it wants to abandon the yearly release model.
Another example is World of Warcraft. Who would have imagined that Final Fantasy14 would steal its thunder 10 years ago? This industry is fluent.
"The availability of Minecraft on rival consoles shows that Microsoft’s commercial strategy is not to make games exclusive."
Tell me you don't know Microsofts strategy without telling me you don't know Microsofts strategy.
It's very hard to respect anyone who buys first place.
Activision makes almost nothing interesting any more. Don’t care who buys them - they can’t be any worse than they are under their current management.
If this was a studio like Capcom, Square or even Ubisoft and EA, though, I’d be up in arms about the dangers of consolidation.
“The Merger would lead to consolidation and would set a harmful precedent in the gaming industry of acquiring large publishers rather than encouraging organic growth.”
Ding ding ding but the problem is that the precedent has already been set before this, I think it being blocked would be a setback for the gray goo future of the industry but it seems inevitable either way.
Xbox has been in 3rd place for 2 generations now. Sony and Nintendo both have massive amounts of console exclusives. I see zero problem with this. Government doesn't need to protect us from the companies that make luxury devices.
I mostly dont play activisions games but I can understand the feels and implications.
@MrHonest Why would they make it exclusive? Think about it.
Right now Microsoft gets 30% of any CoD related purchase on Xbox.
When they own it, they'd get 100% on Xbox, %70% from Playstation, Steam and Nintendo.
If you're gonna leave that kind of money on the table you're out of your damn mind.
@Ooccoo_Jr starfield being exclusive doesn’t harm the other platforms in any way, because they have their own exclusive single player action rpg’s. (God of War, Horizon, Spiderman, Zelda). With CoD being a multiplayer game that’s different.
I support the merger.
I think that Microsoft can revive some of Activision Blizzard's dormant IPs, and I also want Activision to help 343 push Halo in a refined direction. I feel like CoD has heavily influenced Halo post-Bungie, and their multiplayer has gotten better a lot since Halo 4, but there is still room for improvement.
Part of me also wants to see what increased competition will mean for us gamers. The Wii/PS3/360 generation is still my favorite, and I feel like sales being so close that generation made all of the Big 3 push their boundaries.
And what percentage of those comments were bots?
1) Sony really does have more system exclusives, and their good games too.
2) MS really could do the same. They just haven't with the studios they already own.
3) I don't see MS messing with CoD. It's a cash cow and is almost certainly more profitable to keep it that way instead of trying to leverage it as an exclusive.
4) The comments about harmful precedent and string of acquisitions, etc. are on the strawman side. That's just standard business stuff.
Really, I see this all as a signal that the gaming industry is moving into a 2nd maturity growth stage, or maybe a 3rd depending on how count things. Gaming has always been a balance between making great games and making profitable games. The very same thing can be said of the movie industry; which is the very reason we get so many remakes. This is why we've seen such a growth of the indie developer, and that's a very good thing. The movie industry also has its indie studios, but the products are not nearly as accepted by the public as we see in gaming. There are the exceptions to this, sure.
Should this merger be allowed? I think so. But, there should be some sticking points, like MS isn't allowed to buy another game dev studio for x years. Must make x commitment on the existing IPs. These kinds of things. There are probably other requirements that should be added.
Totally against this merger. You can easily cherry pick facts to support or not support the merger, but the bottom line is a console owner is buying the single largest gaming publisher in the industry. There is no way that is good overall for the average gamer or the industry as a whole.
I keep saying it: Who cares what gamers, investors, and regulatory bodies think of this? Listen to ABK employees.
I still feel like MS’s primary strategy is going to be a license holder like with minecraft. They want to be in every home and don’t care how that happens xbox or pc or competition . Items like Bethesda suck for somy players true but Bethesda making starfield exclusive (but they hadn’t announced systems prior so it isn’t like they walked back announced support) was originally windows and xbox focused and their ports of oblivion and skyrim to sony consoles came with some pretty poor functionality. And that’s on top of standard Bethesda bugs. And the items that seem to be better suited to multiplat like COD, MS is trying to get that on as many platforms as possible including Nintendo which hasn’t seen any type of COD for years. I’m not saying MS is a saint in this but they seem to be less interested in keeping content that was normally available from others. Meanwhile Sony and even Nintendo have paid for timed exclusives. Or in Sony’s case exclusive content (Spiderman in Avengers, COD exclusives/early access). This deal has just as much potential to give more access to games as it does less.
Necessary evil. Activision Blizzard is a shambling diseased zombie company, it needs to be bought and refreshed and Microsoft is the only one with enough resources and gumption to do it.
@Ooccoo_Jr Specific titles that were already on other platforms not being removed is different from every single future title being multiplatform. That is clearly a ridiculous expectation. When Nintendo and Sony have acquired studios in the past, how much speculation or expectation is there that the studio in question will still produce titles for competing platforms? Outside of Sony's acquisition of Bungie (which seems to have been designed to strengthen their argument against microsoft), absolutely none.
...Sigh.
Teddy Roosevelt is rolling in his grave right now.
@FantasiaWHT This - and if it went through, Sony would have to actually use some of those long dead exclusive IPs they've been letting rot away.
What's the point of these comments? They aren't statements from Microsoft. They aren't analysis from experts. Do these people know what they're talking about?
Are we supposed to read them and think "yes, clearly MS won't make CoD exclusive because of this thin reason from an internet commenter."
Completely useless.
And does the CMA have any idea what it's regulating here? I suspect MS's lawyers know that all the CMA needs is an excuse to tack on to their rubber stamp.
Yeah but the public dosent know or understand the business side of things.
@GrailUK pretty much the story of Sony and Microsoft in the console space, jumped in and threw loads of money around to get them off their feet. Beg friends.
@WiltonRoots Yep. As much as I think it's gross, they aren't doing anything that hasn't been done before. I would respect Microsoft more if they built up their own studios rather than buy them. I would respect Sony more if they sucked it up instead of moaning about it. I would respect Nintendo more if they bought up Capcom, Konami, SquareEnix and Namco before anyone else did (hahaha joking but not joking...ahem)
The only ones who really have a problem are the Sony fanboys who been drinking Jim Ryan's Kool-aid.
@Ooccoo_Jr Starfield is a single player game. Big difference.
I’m fine with this. Sony’s hilarious hypocritical reaction to all this was bonus popcorn material too
Right now ActiBlizz is dead to me. They made a big show of dismissing people who publicly got caught, but kept the old leadership that allowed things to get so bad in the first place. That tells me there is still a lot of rot festering under the surface. The recent launches of Diablo Immortal and Overwatch 2 show me a company that is trying to bleed it's player base dry before selling out. WoW Dragonflight is a familiar song and dance to me, them screwing up big time and making something good to bring people back before slipping back into their old ways. I was heavily into the Blizzard side of things, so I have zero frame of reference for the Activision/King sides of things.
I personally want to see this deal go through because I have ZERO faith in ActiBlizz fixing themselves, and my hope would be Microsoft at least doing something about the leadership. If the deal goes through I watch what happens with the leadership to decide if I want to go back. If the deal fails I continue on not playing their games anymore. And let's be honest here, ActiBlizz wants to sell. If this deal fails they'll just go to like Tencent or something else. I extra don't want that. Microsoft I'm at least semi-positive about thanks to Minecraft.
As far as exclusivity goes, we've been dealing with exclusives my whole life. I really don't care at all about that argument. I own a Switch for Nintendo exclusives. I own a PC for most everything else. I look at Playstation exclusives and shrug. I look at Xbox and see "Xbox/Windows exclusive". Regardless of if this passes or fails there will still be exclusives in the world. And even then we have Microsoft maintaining Minecraft on ALL platforms. They don't have to do that, but they still do it anyway.
My stance on this is purely about cleaning the rot in the company. I'm not holding my breath one way or the other. I just feel like this is the best chance we get at it. I'm not terribly keen on the consolidation of companies, but for this very specific case I feel that consolidation is the lesser of the evils and fixing the rot is more important.
I mean, given the state of Activision / Blizzard's leadership, even an Elon Musk-led acquisition might have been viewed as a step in the right direction.
Are they buying COD or Candy Crush?
I don't really care about this purchase, but why is it so focused on one game when there are probably other more lucrative reasons to purchase Activision than just COD?
Hi, I despise capitalistic analytics and find the title of this article hilarious, because of the sociology, of course. I also am not a fan of call of duty franchise because of the the phallic misogyny, for sure. Finally, I do not like the word “merger”;( oh, well.
I see no problem here.
Being able to play COD on Game Pass, X Cloud, Samsung TV, PC, console, will be very advantageous for me, the consumer.
Hope Microsoft buys it soon.
@Tott It's more so of Activision's and Blizzard's VAST back catalog of titles that they can put on Game Pass. If the merger goes though, Microsoft can basically double the number of permanently available games on Game Pass in a single day.
Personally, if it was up to me, I would let the merger happen, but force Microsoft to spin-off a number of studios to allow the deal to go though.
@NatiaAdamo
Well there we go — thank you!
That makes a ton of sense, but also amplifies the narrow minded COD arguments out there.
The fact that Microsoft is bringing COD to Switch just to stick it to Sony is glorious.
If I was Phil, I would buy exclusive rights to literally every FPS game on the market. COD, Battle Field, Far Cry, Half-life, ... all of them. I would then issue formal statements about console exclusivity of all the ones they already own or have deals with that are PC only or multi-console. Valorant, Outer Worlds, that type of thing. Just remind everyone that they already own studios that produce some of the best FPS games on the market or have deep pocket deals with studios that do on PC. Don't buy any studios, because there is no regulation of deals. Just come out and say "You've made it so it's not worth buying Activision any more, so instead we just inked a deal with them that says they will never again develop a game for a Sony platform, ever, for all time, with no exceptions. We've done the same with basically everyone who isn't already in bed with Sony. It cost us about 11 days of revenue".
In every single case, I would say they are going to be PC, Xbox, and Switch exclusive moving forward. I was then take every single multi-platform game MS owns (like Minecraft) and make the same accountment. PC, Xbox, Switch only moving forward.
The terms would be simple; everything goes back the way it was when Sony revokes there absolutely unfounded, radicalise objection to the Activision deal, spends millions on a public ad buy in all markets and all languages where they explain how MS offered them TEN YEARS OF COD FREE ON PS+, but instead of making this insanely good deal for gamer and people who own PlayStation, they choice to oppose the deal. Part of the deal would be full disclosure of exactly how much money Sony spent funding the legal challenge, and what price increases or scale back of features for PlayStation owners would be paying for their childish hissy fit.
Gamers, in their infinite wisdom, made Sony into a monster that is, without question, the worst thing for gaming in decades and the most openly hostile company towards it's own player base by drooling over them and telling them they could do no wrong for a whole generation. This is just a drop in a flood. They block cross play and cross save on games with Xbox and Switch for no reason. Microsoft has a program where you can send them your Switch or PlayStaion source code and they will add in cross play, cross save, and cross network communication FOR FREE, Sony has told developers they will delist any game that uses it. Microsoft is working with Nintendo towards freaking CROSS BUY, the idea that if you buy a game on Switch you can play it ... FOR FREE ... on PC, and Sony wont even come to the table. MS is working with Nintendo to bring Gamepass cloud to Switch. It's insane just how much gaming technology is being held back by Sony right now, and how much better gaming would be for all of us if they were out of the picture.
It needs to stop, and MS has the power to stop them.
"competes with PlayStation exclusives"
lol. Microsoft games are better than the playstation exclusives. These sony ""games"" competes with Netflix, not Microsoft.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...