If the UK already blocked the deal, why does the US need to? I guess it is likely better for the companies involved to know they don't just need to appease the UK but also others, but it seems like a non-story...
I am just asking what the point is? Why bother with all the paperwork banning a merger that is not going to happen? The US (or UK or anyone else) has every RIGHT to book on it. But why spend time and energy exercising that right if it makes no difference and another country already vetoed it?
They could proceed but cease operations in the UK, I'm not sure exactly what that would look like. I guess using a local distributor like they did with NetEase in China?
It would be pretty crazy, but it's not impossible. They aren't going to pull out of the USA though.
Some other outlets reported that Microsoft and Activision were talking about completing the deal despite the UK regulator. The EU already gave it approval to happen, and the US hadn't specifically blocked it.
Or they think the UK citizens won't throw the regulators and their bosses out of a job. I doubt many citizens in the UK feel strongly enough about the merger to want access to neither if they merge. People don't particularly like when you take their toys away.
> fine if both companies (or the one resulting company) never wants to do business in the UK again
There are loads of solutions to this problem, the most obvious one being pulling Activision titles out of the U.K. or spinning off independent distribution rights to that market.
The UK blocking the merger doesn’t necessarily stop it. It could be overturned on appeal or the deal could be modified to suit the UK’s concerns.
It’s also theoretically possible that the deal goes through despite the CMA not approving it. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know if that looks like Microsoft no longer selling games and gaming in the UK (possible) or no longer doing business in the UK entirely (not likely).
> or the deal could be modified to suit the UK’s concerns.
The argument given by the UK's bureaucrats had something to do with cloud gaming. I guess they could make Activision's tittles available on competing cloud gaming platforms in the UK.
>>If the UK already blocked the deal, why does the US need to?
The UK could reverse their position. It makes no sense for the US to rely on a foreign countries ruling, as they have no control over whether it changes.
Bit too late for that I believe. This one wasn't going to create a monopoly since Microsoft is not anywhere near being the largest provider in the gaming industry.
Microsoft isn't a gaming monopoly, and regulators aren't even claiming they are. Just that this deal would create some kind of "cloud gaming" antitrust problem which makes no sense because that isn't a distinct market from "gaming", and it isn't proven people even want cloud gaming, and also there are really no other people even trying cloud gaming.
Funny, I was really hoping this deal would go through so I can play Blizzard games on Geforce Now (who just entered a 10 year agreement with Microsoft)
Ok great. They are blocking this one because Microsoft, but its perfectly ok that all of broadcast media is owned by four companies, all of food is owned by four, and all of computing is owned by five. And we sit here and wonder why most of inflation is actually just profit-taking.
> all of broadcast media is owned by four companies
In television, the vast majority of broadcast and basic cable networks, over a hundred in all, are controlled by seven corporations: Fox Corporation, The Walt Disney Company (which includes the ABC, ESPN, FX and Disney brands), National Amusements (which owns Paramount Global), Comcast (which owns NBCUniversal), Warner Bros. Discovery, E. W. Scripps Company, Cablevision (now known as Altice USA), or some combination thereof. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownersh...
I sincerely appreciate the corrections, and I don't think it wrecks my argument to have the totals be seven, ten, and five. And owning should be construed as something more extreme than simply dominating in the latter case.
Near 100% of my food come from producers not one of the 7.
I live in Los Angeles, so that might be a good explanation. But then, how would you economically produce and distribute food to people in more rural locales, if not for some consolidation? The question of course is what is a reasonable number - is it 7? Or 20? There's no objective answer etched into a tablet somewhere. Instead, dynamic social forces produce an outcome.
“They” as in the people taking these actions now, were not in the same position to do so when your complaint was allowed.
So tiring dealing with low effort notions the government is just a vague amorphous concept when it’s actually people colluding against the public, at which the public throws up their hands in a “we’ve tried nothing but compliance and we’re all out of ideas!” way.
Also it’s totally okay for Sony to snatch up all these exclusivity deals, but Microsoft isn’t allowed to buy more first party game studios so that they can actually compete?
There's a lot of space between "buying nothing" and "buying the biggest game developer in the world" that Microsoft could have explored if they felt they needed to acquire more studios. You know, like when they bought Bethesda for $8 billion and had no trouble. But chose not to repeat that, and went for the throat instead.
There's only a handful of remaining game developers/publisher so systemically significant that a platform owner buying them should get serious antitrust scrutiny. (Activision, EA, Take Two, Ubisoft.)
The problem is that Microsoft performed so poorly in the last generation of game consoles, that it is critical that they find a way to compete during this one if they plan to stay in this space for the next generation.
Hardware wise the XBox Series X is as good or better than the PS5 on virtually all counts. Their library of games is a very different story. These acquisitions are crucial to their strategy.
I don’t want to see a Sony monopoly for next generation. Before you say Nintendo, they chose a different path long ago and don’t directly compete with Sony. They instead rely on handheld gaming and quirky, fun hardware with an extremely valuable line of first party exclusives (Mario and Zelda mostly).
I've often wondered how effective a capitalist economy would be if it limited for-profit companies to no more than N employees or forced a revenue cap. The idea being that hard cutoffs would promote more competition.
My question is what happens if they were to merge under US law even though the UK blocked the acquisition? How can this really be a veto system? There must be some interesting funny business you could do with this.
No, I'm not being sarcastic - I'm genuinely curious at your viewpoint. I feel it is an inevitable outcome that once large organizations reach a size where they have the ability to wield their influence over large sections of our economy it becomes a survival mechanism to do so. I personally want less corporate influence over my life (my government in particular) and I oppose them getting large so that they have less power in this area.
I studied a bit of law in Uni in a non-US jurisdiction, and my personal observation seems to be that there’s a bias towards lenient law enforcement towards large corporations with well connected executives and board members.
You can say this is a result of corruption, which i agree, but it also seems to work to the US’s favor when it comes to global competitiveness of the big companies.
Large and powerful companies with unchecked power is bad for equality and fairness within the country, but those same companies are also given an “unfair” advantage when they compete with other countries’ companies.
I suspect this contributes to US being able to maintain their global influence, and is partly why Big Tech are all in America. If they were founded anywhere else, they probably would not have the chance or ambition to expand since they would have been regulated long before they grow to current sizes.
I definitely agree that this leads to the overwhelming corporate influence you mentioned, which is bad. Just pointing out another perspective from the national power front.
Is this question in reference to what the imaginary construct "society" should want, or actual choices, made by the people who run things, about the way the world is arranged?
Don't want to comment on the legally or market forces bit on this, just want to comment as a gamer I'm elated.
Microsoft has destroyed pretty much every franchise it touches, with Azure being able to subsidize huge losses for the garbage they've been producing.
Halo infinite might literally be the biggest flop in entertainment history. 500 million dollars spent and within a FEW MONTHS you had the player count for a FREE multiplayer game in the 5 digits.
These studios and game managers know their jobs are very secure, especially if they fall into Microsoft's ESG requirements, so game quality has taken a complete nosedive.
Gone are the small, nerdy, and passionate studios building these games that existed even during the Xbox 360 era from Microsoft.
Sitting over here playing flight sim, aoe 4 (and 2 every now and then cuz that remaster was fantastic), Forza horizon, looking forward to starfall after the epic gameplay trailer, and wondering someone can have such a drastically different view. Not to mention all of these games are on gamepass, which saved me 100s of dollars.
Is Microsoft really that bad with franchises? Fable was pretty great. Halo until recently? Age of Empires? Flight Sim? Gears of War?
And it's not like Call of Duty is some beloved indie franchise anyway. I'd much prefer that than Microsoft gobbling up a bunch of small indie developers. Even the Blizzard games (Diablo, for example) are way less innovative than their indie counterparts.
And whatever their financials, Microsoft has continued sinking a lot of money into their gaming products, thankfully. They could've surrendered but then we'd lose the one major competitor to Playstation, and maybe even Windows gaming. Until and unless Valve/Steam becomes a vertically integrated platform, Microsoft has a purpose.
As a gamer, I'm mostly sad about this. It's not like Activision was some beloved indie studio anyway, not for a long long long time.
Having them snatched up by Microsoft would've been no real loss to the gaming community, but would've opened up synergies for Game Pass and cloud streaming and maybe even given the consolidated company a shot at competing with Sony and Nintendo in terms of ensuring viable platforms (not to mention Apple and Google, or Chinese giants like Tencent).
Meanwhile, most actual games innovation happens at the indie level, not AAA, anyway. So it's not like there was going to be much of a cultural loss.
I normally dislike Microsoft, but to their credit, they've been very loyal to their PC and Xbox gamers, and did a lot of work combining their markets (seamless controller support in Windows games, mouse keyboard support in some Xbox games, cross buy and cross play, streaming, etc.), despite having been a distant third place (or worse) for decades now. They didn't give up on it like they did the browser wars or Zune.
Having a continued viability in Windows and Xbox gaming is a good thing for the community, even as (or perhaps especially while) Proton and Crossover/Apple Game Porting Toolkit and Steam Deck etc. are just getting off the ground. Those efforts are only possible because of the Windows APIs, which are similar enough to the Xbox ones that porting is viable. I doubt there would be a similar path from Playstation.
It seemed like this acquisition would've been a win for gamers. And the market. And maybe Blizzard too, for all its recent culture woes. And I get why the regulators thought this way (two huge companies), but I doubt they really understand the nuances of the gaming ecosystem. Sigh. Maybe when Gen Z gets to run government.
49 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadIt would be pretty crazy, but it's not impossible. They aren't going to pull out of the USA though.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/12/technology/ftc-sue-micros...
There are loads of solutions to this problem, the most obvious one being pulling Activision titles out of the U.K. or spinning off independent distribution rights to that market.
It’s also theoretically possible that the deal goes through despite the CMA not approving it. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know if that looks like Microsoft no longer selling games and gaming in the UK (possible) or no longer doing business in the UK entirely (not likely).
Besides, the US filed suit back in 2022.
The argument given by the UK's bureaucrats had something to do with cloud gaming. I guess they could make Activision's tittles available on competing cloud gaming platforms in the UK.
The UK could reverse their position. It makes no sense for the US to rely on a foreign countries ruling, as they have no control over whether it changes.
In television, the vast majority of broadcast and basic cable networks, over a hundred in all, are controlled by seven corporations: Fox Corporation, The Walt Disney Company (which includes the ABC, ESPN, FX and Disney brands), National Amusements (which owns Paramount Global), Comcast (which owns NBCUniversal), Warner Bros. Discovery, E. W. Scripps Company, Cablevision (now known as Altice USA), or some combination thereof. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownersh...
> all of food is owned by four According to Business Insider article from 2016, these 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the "world": https://www.businessinsider.com/10-companies-control-the-foo...
> and all of computing is owned by five I wonder whether "computing" and "owned" makes sense in the way you phrase your argument.
So tiring dealing with low effort notions the government is just a vague amorphous concept when it’s actually people colluding against the public, at which the public throws up their hands in a “we’ve tried nothing but compliance and we’re all out of ideas!” way.
There's only a handful of remaining game developers/publisher so systemically significant that a platform owner buying them should get serious antitrust scrutiny. (Activision, EA, Take Two, Ubisoft.)
Hardware wise the XBox Series X is as good or better than the PS5 on virtually all counts. Their library of games is a very different story. These acquisitions are crucial to their strategy.
I don’t want to see a Sony monopoly for next generation. Before you say Nintendo, they chose a different path long ago and don’t directly compete with Sony. They instead rely on handheld gaming and quirky, fun hardware with an extremely valuable line of first party exclusives (Mario and Zelda mostly).
I wonder how much of that is because of IP and said IP's underperformance.
Or are you actually being sarcastic?
Do you think this is not the case?
You can say this is a result of corruption, which i agree, but it also seems to work to the US’s favor when it comes to global competitiveness of the big companies.
Large and powerful companies with unchecked power is bad for equality and fairness within the country, but those same companies are also given an “unfair” advantage when they compete with other countries’ companies.
I suspect this contributes to US being able to maintain their global influence, and is partly why Big Tech are all in America. If they were founded anywhere else, they probably would not have the chance or ambition to expand since they would have been regulated long before they grow to current sizes.
I definitely agree that this leads to the overwhelming corporate influence you mentioned, which is bad. Just pointing out another perspective from the national power front.
Microsoft has destroyed pretty much every franchise it touches, with Azure being able to subsidize huge losses for the garbage they've been producing.
Halo infinite might literally be the biggest flop in entertainment history. 500 million dollars spent and within a FEW MONTHS you had the player count for a FREE multiplayer game in the 5 digits.
These studios and game managers know their jobs are very secure, especially if they fall into Microsoft's ESG requirements, so game quality has taken a complete nosedive.
Gone are the small, nerdy, and passionate studios building these games that existed even during the Xbox 360 era from Microsoft.
The Blizzard of today is not a studio that is small, nerdy, and passionate, so what's to lose?
If Microsoft never makes another XBox generation, how good do you think the PS6 will be? Would they even bother making a PS7?
Not to mention Microsoft makes Windows, and has significant control of PC gaming.
And it's not like Call of Duty is some beloved indie franchise anyway. I'd much prefer that than Microsoft gobbling up a bunch of small indie developers. Even the Blizzard games (Diablo, for example) are way less innovative than their indie counterparts.
And whatever their financials, Microsoft has continued sinking a lot of money into their gaming products, thankfully. They could've surrendered but then we'd lose the one major competitor to Playstation, and maybe even Windows gaming. Until and unless Valve/Steam becomes a vertically integrated platform, Microsoft has a purpose.
Having them snatched up by Microsoft would've been no real loss to the gaming community, but would've opened up synergies for Game Pass and cloud streaming and maybe even given the consolidated company a shot at competing with Sony and Nintendo in terms of ensuring viable platforms (not to mention Apple and Google, or Chinese giants like Tencent).
Meanwhile, most actual games innovation happens at the indie level, not AAA, anyway. So it's not like there was going to be much of a cultural loss.
I normally dislike Microsoft, but to their credit, they've been very loyal to their PC and Xbox gamers, and did a lot of work combining their markets (seamless controller support in Windows games, mouse keyboard support in some Xbox games, cross buy and cross play, streaming, etc.), despite having been a distant third place (or worse) for decades now. They didn't give up on it like they did the browser wars or Zune.
Having a continued viability in Windows and Xbox gaming is a good thing for the community, even as (or perhaps especially while) Proton and Crossover/Apple Game Porting Toolkit and Steam Deck etc. are just getting off the ground. Those efforts are only possible because of the Windows APIs, which are similar enough to the Xbox ones that porting is viable. I doubt there would be a similar path from Playstation.
It seemed like this acquisition would've been a win for gamers. And the market. And maybe Blizzard too, for all its recent culture woes. And I get why the regulators thought this way (two huge companies), but I doubt they really understand the nuances of the gaming ecosystem. Sigh. Maybe when Gen Z gets to run government.