By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - CMA blocks MS /ABK merger (Update: UK gov smears the CMA)

The Fury said:
Azzanation said:

You fail to see the logic behind this. Sony is the market leader, its where ABK make alot of their profits on. Sony has alot of pull behind these 3rd party contracts. Thats the power of being market leader.

MS are releasing their games on as many devices as possible. Cant say ABK will put CoD on Nintendo now due to whatever deals they have in place already are possibly stopping it from happening. MS would have pushed that if they had it their way.

ABK have to follow where the money is, they have to please shareholders, they cant just deny a deal that will lose them money. 

I see it fine.

$$$ to be made. ABK do go where the money is. MS is the richer of the players here, time to ditch Sony's ever so important market share and take the big bucks from MS for their main sponsor for CoD, heck all their games. I mean, I hear they might have a spare $69billion going around.

Companies like MS don't spend money for short term gains. That $69billion ($66Billion) will go back into MS warchest not Xbox.



Around the Network

Always good to see any sort of major corporate merger blocked, but I'm kinda surprised the CMA's argument was based on cloud gaming and not something like the potential for monopolizing Call of Duty, which is basically like 90% of A-B's business on the console side. I don't really keep up with cloud-based gaming so I'm not too familiar with it, but what does Activision have to do with cloud gaming?



Visit http://shadowofthevoid.wordpress.com

In accordance to the VGC forum rules, §8.5, I hereby exercise my right to demand to be left alone regarding the subject of the effects of the pandemic on video game sales (i.e., "COVID bump").

Shadow1980 said:

Always good to see any sort of major corporate merger blocked, but I'm kinda surprised the CMA's argument was based on cloud gaming and not something like the potential for monopolizing Call of Duty, which is basically like 90% of A-B's business on the console side. I don't really keep up with cloud-based gaming so I'm not too familiar with it, but what does Activision have to do with cloud gaming?

Not much yet, but King is part of the deal and they do own a little game called Candy Crush. MS has xCloud and wants to open a mobile store and get xCloud onto your phone (and TV). CoD as one of the most popular games is the perfect Trojan Horse to get gamepass onto mobile. King has the connections and experience in the mobile world MS wants to get into. CoD mobile already exists, but the dream of course is to have one CoD to rule them all. A unified (like bedrock) CoD for everyone, play on your phone on the way back from work, then continue on TV at home.

5g is good enough for mobile phone cloud gaming. Not good enough for pro players / those frequenting game sites, but plenty for the masses. Cloud gaming is forecasted to grow 42% yoy to 2030 while console gaming revenue is pretty much flat nowadays. With 6.92 billion smart phones in the world, that's too big of a blue ocean to ignore. Mobile gaming is where the growth is and already generates twice the revenue of console gaming.

MS isn't spending 69 billion to slightly increase their slice in the stagnant console/pc game revenues. They're spending it to change the way we play (and not own) games. It's about getting rid of the 'box' as a hurdle and turn gaming into another guaranteed cash cow like office 365.



SvennoJ said:
Shadow1980 said:

Always good to see any sort of major corporate merger blocked, but I'm kinda surprised the CMA's argument was based on cloud gaming and not something like the potential for monopolizing Call of Duty, which is basically like 90% of A-B's business on the console side. I don't really keep up with cloud-based gaming so I'm not too familiar with it, but what does Activision have to do with cloud gaming?

Not much yet, but King is part of the deal and they do own a little game called Candy Crush. MS has xCloud and wants to open a mobile store and get xCloud onto your phone (and TV). CoD as one of the most popular games is the perfect Trojan Horse to get gamepass onto mobile. King has the connections and experience in the mobile world MS wants to get into. CoD mobile already exists, but the dream of course is to have one CoD to rule them all. A unified (like bedrock) CoD for everyone, play on your phone on the way back from work, then continue on TV at home.

5g is good enough for mobile phone cloud gaming. Not good enough for pro players / those frequenting game sites, but plenty for the masses. Cloud gaming is forecasted to grow 42% yoy to 2030 while console gaming revenue is pretty much flat nowadays. With 6.92 billion smart phones in the world, that's too big of a blue ocean to ignore. Mobile gaming is where the growth is and already generates twice the revenue of console gaming.

MS isn't spending 69 billion to slightly increase their slice in the stagnant console/pc game revenues. They're spending it to change the way we play (and not own) games. It's about getting rid of the 'box' as a hurdle and turn gaming into another guaranteed cash cow like office 365.

Ah. So it was more about the mobile side of things. Thanks for explaining.



Visit http://shadowofthevoid.wordpress.com

In accordance to the VGC forum rules, §8.5, I hereby exercise my right to demand to be left alone regarding the subject of the effects of the pandemic on video game sales (i.e., "COVID bump").

CaptainExplosion said:

Now how do we get rid of Kotick? -_-

The CMA also said they believe Kotick should remain at the top of ABK to insure a good quality work environment



Around the Network
Shadow1980 said:

Always good to see any sort of major corporate merger blocked, but I'm kinda surprised the CMA's argument was based on cloud gaming and not something like the potential for monopolizing Call of Duty, which is basically like 90% of A-B's business on the console side. I don't really keep up with cloud-based gaming so I'm not too familiar with it, but what does Activision have to do with cloud gaming?

It's about more than cloud gaming though, they do specifically mention that the deal MAY further Microsoft dominance in multiple industries including PC. They also talk about how they believe microsoft MAY increase GamePass prices after the merger. When it comes to the cloud, the cloud MAY become the default way of playing games in the future and protecting that future from POTENTIAL monopolistic practices is enough to block the sale. 

They believe blocking the sale isn't going to harm the industry, allowing it to pass MAY result in harm, however. CMA doesn't want the POTENTIAL risks of allowing the sale to pass, which is what anti-trust laws and regulations job should be about; prevention

There is no cure in looking back at FB/WhatsApp/Instagram and go "oh, we should've blocked that".

Sounds the CMA is being rational to me, I am only shocked because I have been living in corporate dystopia for far too long and forgot what regulators are for (and I still believe the deal will ultimately pass). 

Last edited by LurkerJ - on 28 April 2023

How would MS manage to dominate an open platform like PC though, when Steam is still at the top?.

Like for real, MS store/Xbox app doesn't have nearly as many ppl buying from it than you would on Steam, so how would they dominate what they currently aren't dominating, by buying Acti-Blizz?.

Seriously, I'm pondering like hell as to how they could dominate, in a way that gets people to WANT to buy from them, instead of strong arming and pissing ppl off to just use what they are already using currently. I feel like the mere mention of "PC domination" is a bit fear mongering.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Chazore said:

How would MS manage to dominate an open platform like PC though, when Steam is still at the top?.

Like for real, MS store/Xbox app doesn't have nearly as many ppl buying from it than you would on Steam, so how would they dominate what they currently aren't dominating, by buying Acti-Blizz?.

Seriously, I'm pondering like hell as to how they could dominate, in a way that gets people to WANT to buy from them, instead of strong arming and pissing ppl off to just use what they are already using currently. I feel like the mere mention of "PC domination" is a bit fear mongering.

They can't, Steam (Valve) is so entrenched as the top player that the only way MS would be able to dominate PC is to buyout Valve itself (which isn't happening). So yes, as you stated; it's all fear-mongering for anyone to say MS has any potential to dominate the PC space. 



Chazore said:

How would MS manage to dominate an open platform like PC though, when Steam is still at the top?.

Like for real, MS store/Xbox app doesn't have nearly as many ppl buying from it than you would on Steam, so how would they dominate what they currently aren't dominating, by buying Acti-Blizz?.

Seriously, I'm pondering like hell as to how they could dominate, in a way that gets people to WANT to buy from them, instead of strong arming and pissing ppl off to just use what they are already using currently. I feel like the mere mention of "PC domination" is a bit fear mongering.

I didn't mean dominance in PC gaming revenue. What I was alluding to in my initial post is their dominance in the PC space in general, or that's how I understood their documents anyway (some comments about the remedies provided by MS being too windows centric). 



LurkerJ said:

I didn't mean dominance in PC gaming revenue. What I was alluding to in my initial post is their dominance in the PC space in general, or that's how I understood their documents anyway (some comments about the remedies provided by MS being too windows centric). 

You do realise the PC space means all software providers, publishers, studios making apps, game publishers, etc.


You do realise that MS has money, but they cannot literally buy everyone and everything that is being used within PC's universe. 

They *could* put a lockdown on everything and just be an outward brute to everyone, but we all know how that worked out when they tried their EEE strat, so them going from a subtle strat to an outlandish one would get shut down so much faster.

PC in general is so much bigger than you think you know, bigger than anyone here knows, and I'm not on about the gaming sector, I'm on about everything else (yes literally everything else within it's sphere). MS cannot afford to buyout or control absolutely everything on PC, it's both impossible and entirely impractical (Which is why they have their OS, the cloud and some services, instead of hw, and literally everything else anyone else has made for and on PC, past present and future, because that's just not possible.

I'm legit trying to mull over this ability to somehow own/dominate an open platform, and it sounds so bonkers, like not a "whoa man, far out", I mean as in "wow, not possible, why we we even trying to think of this?".

Despite what others will tell you, Mac, Windows and Linux, as well as Amiga, are all OS's that are used for PC's, so regardless of Windows existing, MS would still somehow have to dominate/own Mac OS and Linux, as in prevent any and all growth, because time changes everything, things grow, and dominance can certainly wane, so for them to dominate all of PC, they would have to eliminate or own those following OS's, or risk them growing and making their "dominance" a non factor or "whatever".



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"