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?
