Ryuu96 said:
Idas Said:
MLex has a report about the new questionnaire:
Microsoft exclusivity strategies at center stage in EU questions on Activision deal
Microsoft's ability to make Activision Blizzard's content exclusive to its Xbox console, either in full or in part, is at the heart of a new questionnaire from the EU's competition enforcer seeking to drill into the effect of the software giant's $69 billion takeover, MLex has learned.
Assuming that Activision Blizzard's content becomes exclusively available on Xbox, which of the three main console makers — Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo — would have the most attractive content, the European Commission asks in the 91-page questionnaire.
Which "partial" exclusivity strategies would Microsoft have the ability to engage in? Might it degrade the quality of Activision Blizzard content on rival consoles, or might it rather worsen the interoperability of the content with other consoles?
Or could it engage on another strategy such as providing upgrades for Activision Blizzard's titles on Xbox but not on other consoles, raising wholesale prices for rivals, delaying releases or making some features exclusively available on Xbox?
The watchdog said it was worried Microsoft may have the ability and incentive to prevent rivals from distributing Activision Blizzard's games or worsening their terms and conditions of access. It also said it was concerned Microsoft could restrict rival game subscription services or cloud gaming services' access to its games.
The questionnaire also asks how important it is for consoles to offer a full catalog of the most popular games in order to compete. Do they need to have a catalog across multiple genres or even a catalog of shooter games?
More broadly, does Microsoft compete most closely with Sony or Nintendo, or both? Which of the two competes most closely with Microsoft's Xbox in the distribution of console games, or do they both do so equally?
Further questions ask about the prevalence of cross-play in the gaming industry, where gamers play against others on a different console. Are there technical barriers to offering those services?
In its latest questionnaire, the commission asks games publishers about their distribution agreements with consoles and the advantages or disadvantages of making a blockbuster game exclusive to a certain console.
If a large proportion of PlayStation users switched to another console, would this change a developer's incentive to make games for PlayStation? How many users would have to switch for a developer to no longer have an incentive to make PlayStation games?
Other questions seek to determine what impact the deal would have on rival game subscription services and cloud gaming services, and how markets for these services are likely to develop in the next five to 10 years.
What time and resources are necessary to start providing a cloud game streaming service? What are the main factors of competition between such services, and how likely are consumers to subscribe to more than one service at once?
The commission wants to know what would be the impact on competition if the Activision Blizzard catalog was to become available on a cloud gaming service.
Other questions focus on the impact the takeover could have on rival manufacturers of PC operating systems. Is demand likely to increase for cloud gaming services on PCs in in the coming years, in particular on low-end PCs that would not normally be able to run complex games like Call of Duty?
The commission asks if "compatibility layers" can be used to run Windows games on non-Windows PCs. Would Microsoft have the ability to prevent Activision Blizzard's games from being compatible in this way on other operating systems in the future?
Could cloud gaming be an effective way to bring more PC games to non-Windows operating systems, the commission asks.
Should Activision Blizzard's games be only available for streaming on Windows PCs, would this attract additional users to Windows and discourage users from buying PCs with other operating systems?
|
Finally, a regulatory body that seems to be doing it's job in an impartial manner. All those questions are legit, some of them have already been answered some have already been addressed through legally binding deal offering, but all are legit and show the will of the EC to judge the deal on it's merits and not some politically motivated argument. It also shows that the EC is willing to engage with MS to resolve any potential issue.
At this point a think MS could agree to extend the Activision deal to every existing Acti-blizzard IPs and almost all of the questions/issues they try to portray would be resolved. Although it would be a nuclear option it would have a side effect of greatly protecting those assets value.
If MS were to use this nuclear option only those easy to answer questions would be left:
More broadly, does Microsoft compete most closely with Sony or Nintendo, or both? Which of the two competes most closely with Microsoft's Xbox in the distribution of console games, or do they both do so equally?
- but the answer to that question would be of no effect if the context they extend the deal to cover all existing IP.
Further questions ask about the prevalence of cross-play in the gaming industry, where gamers play against others on a different console. Are there technical barriers to offering those services?
- The only true barrier is sony unwillingness to do so but it's not technical. XD Other than that different framerate, resolutions, and IO devices for input will offer various degrees of fairness but that can be mitigated with sufficient data and features in place.
What time and resources are necessary to start providing a cloud game streaming service? What are the main factors of competition between such services, and how likely are consumers to subscribe to more than one service at once?
- Gaikai did so more than 10 years ago and Sony bought them so it's probably not that hard for any actor in the industry as of now, although the success of those services has not materialized yet.
The commission asks if "compatibility layers" can be used to run Windows games on non-Windows PCs. Would Microsoft have the ability to prevent Activision Blizzard's games from being compatible in this way on other operating systems in the future?
- Yes technically it's doable but MS as probably no will to do so. Having all their catalog on Steam is pretty much garrant to that, when a game is sold through steam it is of no value for MS that the game run on Windows or another OS.
- MS may need to offer a legally binding concession on this but it cannot guarantee that performance will not be affected by the compatibility layer.
Could cloud gaming be an effective way to bring more PC games to non-Windows operating systems, the commission asks.
- Yes as proven by the Samsung tv app
Should Activision Blizzard's games be only available for streaming on Windows PCs, would this attract additional users to Windows and discourage users from buying PCs with other operating systems?
- Could be but, Xcloud is platform agnostic and is already on Android, Ios, Samsung smart tv, any device that run Edge, safari, google chrome (officially) and all other chromium based browser (tested and it work on opera/opera gx). Ms don't lock out content from Xcloud based on where it is being run.
- MS may have to make leagaly binding concession here but probably an easy one to agrees to.
Last edited by EpicRandy - on 20 December 2022
