"One of the reasons that companies like Microsoft and Google want to invest in the UK is because we have independent regulators that aren't controlled by politicians," Jeremy Hunt told a business conference. "I would not want to undermine that at all, but I do think it's important all our regulators understand their wider responsibilities for economic growth". 

In other words: "I wouldn't want to interfere with their independence, but I will". Brazen. 

The next line though of "But for our tech sector, it isn’t just about being able to get through big deals, competition really matters.”   

And imo that's what CMA is trying to do, protect the competition for this fast and up coming cloud market. So I really don't believe he will interfere in this. But we'll see.  

I think the fact that's the government is now parroting MS/ABK the baseless narrative about this deal about "growth" says a lot really. Sunak echoed the same exact narrative as well, we will get the an idea about how they plan to "steer" an independent body very soon. Steering an independent body is an oxymoron. 

"With this context, we did not think the merger raised a vertical issue. I am told Call of Duty is a very popular shooter franchise. But we found that Microsoft would probably not shoot itself in the foot by stopping sales of Call of Duty games to the much larger PlayStation player base. Our colleagues at the CMA agreed with us and ultimately reached the same conclusion."

"Where we did have concerns was in cloud gaming - still a nascent market but one we expect to grow, because it offers many advantages for gamers," said Vestager. "For one, it enables gamers to untie games from specific devices - that means more accessibility and lower cost. So cloud gaming deserved an in-depth assessment. This was a common concern because, like us, the CMA focused on this market.

"Where we diverged with the CMA was on remedies. We accepted a 10-year free license to consumers to allow them to stream all Activision games for which they have a license via any cloud service. And why did we do this instead of blocking the merger? Well, to us, this solution fully addressed our concerns. And on top of that, it had significant procompetitive effects.

Vestager concluded, "Our mission is to accompany that transition, one merger at a time. It is to find solutions that keep the game fair for all players, and working closely together with sister agencies as we do so. That is our Call of Duty."

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/457312/eu-antitrust-chief-microsofts-activision-blizzard-deal-has-significant-procompetitive-effects/

The EC is devoid of logic. Just like the CMA, they recognise the cloud market is going to be significant, and just the like the CMA, both asked for remedies. The EC goes ahead and accept remedies that will only a short specific period of time through which cloud gaming is barely to going to catch on, and when the tide will finally rise, MS will sink all ships but theirs because the remedies offered are not permanent.

In addition, someone is being willingly ignorant when they say "MS is probably not going to shoot themselves in the foot by withholding CoD", what planet do you live on? Big Tech, and MS in particular, are more than willing to dominate markets by eating up losses because they have always valued growth over profits. Just look at Amazon. Other companies have to actually try to make a profit or they will cease to exist. Only companies like MS get to be the McDonald's of tech and fail upwards. 

I am fine with EC approving the merger, but their rationale is nonsense.

To be honest if MS was going to continue to offer COD on Playstation platforms like they do with Minecraft ... then really this deal never was going to be a big deal for the XBox brand specifically, other than the Game Pass thing, which I think Microsoft can just pay for separately if they really want to (COD on Game Pass day 1).

It may be an actual good thing for XBox that now maybe some of that money can go into games that are actual exclusives.

I think you underestimate how much value ABK IPs would have added to Game Pass, specifically in European markets where Xbox + Bethesda + Mojang are not that of a big deal but ABK IPs are, and more so than the other 3 combined like in France.

Also under MS, it would have been easier for them to finally get two a 2-year cycle instead of 1 year which would have benefited the franchise E-sport scene and freed so many dev teams, both directly and from studios that have been converted to cod support, for creative work again either with new IP or revisited one.

It would also have secured them a very strong foothold in mobile gaming.

As for the exclusive front, MS doesn't shy away from funding them through second-party deals of first-party development at every opportunity they get so the deal being blocked won't change anything there.

So the CMA lawyer just got punked in court. Court date set for July 24th.

Here's an insightful interview with an industry expert, it covers yesterday's hearings and the overall current state of the deal.

Start focusing on cost of living, ministers to tell competition watchdog

Brief will appear after concerns the Competition and Markets Authority may have been blocking deals that would help the economy

Kemi Badenoch, Business Secretary, is preparing a "strategic steer" that will formally ask the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to promote "supply-side growth and investment" while protecting competition and ensuring lower prices for consumers. Her department said: "Too often growth has not been given the priority by regulators that it needs and we are determined to change that."

The CMA has also been criticised by ministers over its responsiveness to complaints and its internal focus on diversity schemes.

The Telegraph recently disclosed that the body had published internal guidelines encouraging staff to use 10 per cent of their working time taking part in groups and activities that promote "an inclusive culture and working environment in which everyone can thrive and bring their whole selves to work".

It is currently operating a "hybrid working model" under which staff are encouraged to spend up to 60 per cent of their time working from home.

The move comes as part of an attempt to take a "smarter" approach to regulation in order to grow the economy. In a paper setting out the approach, Mrs Badenoch's department said that Brexit was a "historic moment for this country, giving us for the first time in many decades the final say over the way we regulate". It added: "We do not consider regulation to be a dirty word, but it must be used only where necessary and be implemented in a way that provides the right foundations for our economy to thrive."

The business department warned: "Each of us as consumers lose out when such regulation blocks innovation and competition, increases prices or lowers the quality and choice of goods and services available."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/03/cma-cost-of-living-focus-ministers/

Oh, how dare they work from home even if the nature of the job completely allows it. Diversity training as well? get out.

Textbook ring wing smears that have been used against the public sector for years is being retooled against the CMA, what does team building exercise and working from home have to do with anything?

Hunt and Smith meeting (aka puppet meets with his master) be interesting, This meeting, its timing, and the people involved stinks with the familiar tale of politicians working for the oligarchy. You have the CAT listening to you and accommodating your requests, there are multiple avenues through which this merger can go through if the CMA has made mistakes. What do you need Hunt for? 

The more we hear coming out of the UK and from various analysts, the more the CMA's decision looks ridiculous. It sure looks like nothing more than political nonsense to me. It's similar to what's going on with the FTC, though the FTC took an approach that shields them from so much criticism because they are not actually standing in the way of the deal closing.