UK competition authority blocks Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition

Hanno Labuschagne

Journalist
Staff member
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,740
Reaction score
4,039
UK competition authority blocks Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition

Microsoft Corp.’s $69 billion (R1.3 trillion) takeover of Activision Blizzard Inc. suffered a hammer blow after Britain’s antitrust watchdog vetoed the gaming industry’s biggest-ever deal, saying it would harm competition in cloud gaming.

The Competition and Markets Authority said its concerns couldn’t be solved by remedies such as the sale of blockbuster title Call of Duty or so-called behavioural remedies involving promises to permit rivals to offer the game on their platforms, according to a statement Wednesday.

[Bloomberg]
 
This is quite surprising, everyone said it will go through - especially after they dropped the console concerns. So EU will likely follow the CMA? Looks like this deal is dead if that's the case.

Read a comment that Australia's govt will also be hard to convince but don't know how true that is.
 
I'm curious how does a UK watchdog dictate what two American companies do?
 
This is quite surprising, everyone said it will go through - especially after they dropped the console concerns. So EU will likely follow the CMA? Looks like this deal is dead if that's the case.

Read a comment that Australia's govt will also be hard to convince but don't know how true that is.

I thought Australia already approved? I know Brazil did, South Africa did, Japan did.
 
saying it would harm competition in cloud gaming.
Interesting... I can see this being an issue in the (far?) future, but ATM things don't look too bright (Nintendo gamer, so what do I know?) for cloud.

ZA approving this deal means diddly squat, JP though... One would think that after that approval it would be plain sailing. Ironically Sony is opposing, while JP is okay.

If the deal goes through after this I'll be v surprised.

Oh well, back to animal crossing...
 
The Competition and Markets Authority said its concerns couldn’t be solved by remedies such as the sale of blockbuster title Call of Duty or so-called behavioural remedies involving promises to permit rivals to offer the game on their platforms, according to a statement Wednesday.

OK you statist morons, please describe how Playstation owners not having the next installment of Call of Duty is an act of monopoly? I mean we all know that first person shooters are just this ultra-rare commodity that needs the careful regulation of the state in order to make sure that everyone has access to.

Competition commissions around the world can get f__Ked.
 
I thought the decision hinged on dominance in game streaming, and not exclusivity ...? Looks like MS wants their games on everything and my toaster, but via streaming. No, download, no install. Choose game. Play.
 
OK you statist morons, please describe how Playstation owners not having the next installment of Call of Duty is an act of monopoly? I mean we all know that first person shooters are just this ultra-rare commodity that needs the careful regulation of the state in order to make sure that everyone has access to.

Competition commissions around the world can get f__Ked.
They just want some greasing of palms
 
OK you statist morons, please describe how Playstation owners not having the next installment of Call of Duty is an act of monopoly? I mean we all know that first person shooters are just this ultra-rare commodity that needs the careful regulation of the state in order to make sure that everyone has access to.

Competition commissions around the world can get f__Ked.

Huh? I think you're misunderstanding their reason. They actually sided with MS when it came to console exclusivity arguments and argued that MS simply wouldn't remove CoD from PS because it would be financially stupid.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious how does a UK watchdog dictate what two American companies do?

The merger would affect business operations in the UK, as ABK does have studios and staff located in these regions. In addition, the merger would affect services offered by Microsoft to customers in the UK, and the CMA's job is to reduce market monopolies for UK-bound customers.

In addition, Sony's direct competition in the UK is Playstation Now streaming, which is included in Playstation Plus Premium subscriptions.

I also don't understand this.

Brazil said the merger was fine, why do they get a say? What does Kazakhstan think about it?

Brazil's regulators didn't have issues with the merger because of a few key issues:

1) They admitted that Microsoft taking CoD off Playstation would not tangibly affect Sony's hardware sales in the region. Consoles and videogames are heavily taxed in Brazil and surrounding regions.

2) They argued that they didn't have the mandate to protect business interests of competitors. Brazil's regulators noted that their duty was to consumer interests and market freedom, not ensuring that Sony wouldn't lose a small chunk of its business in the first-person-shooter genre in South American markets.

If this had been a deal between Microsoft and EA, and Sony said they were worried about FIFA / EA FC? Totally different argument.

3) Sony's arguments in Brazil specifically targeted hardware sales because streaming services aren't available there.

Our Competition Commision said more or less the same thing.

Interesting... I can see this being an issue in the (far?) future, but ATM things don't look too bright (Nintendo gamer, so what do I know?) for cloud.

ZA approving this deal means diddly squat, JP though... One would think that after that approval it would be plain sailing. Ironically Sony is opposing, while JP is okay.

Japan's regulators are probably reviewing their decision after realising that they missed out on protecting the cloud gaming market. Handhelds and portable gaming are big business in Japan, and there's healthy competition with Android, iOS, and Nintendo Switch in the mix (and now Steam Deck, ASUS ROG Ally, similar handhelds, and Logitech Cloud G).

But game streaming is taking off in Japan, and Sony is in the lead there. Microsoft is their closest competitor. Japan regulators missing out on the streaming angle damaged Sony's chances at squashing the merger in Asian markets.

But to be fair, Sony didn't look at it the same way either. They are not the leader in game streaming services in other markets. Microsoft's competition in those markets is Amazon, and was previously Google Stadia. Geforce Now doesn't really enter the picture.

As for Microsoft, they have over 20 million customers paying for Xbox Game Pass Ultimate in order to use Xbox Game Streaming on their mobile devices. That's a doubling of users since March 2022 (within one year), and the UK CMA noted that Xbox Game Streaming users tripled their numbers in the UK in the same time.

The pandemic and lack of access to new consoles drove a lot of people in supported regions to use the service.
 
Interesting... I can see this being an issue in the (far?) future, but ATM things don't look too bright (Nintendo gamer, so what do I know?) for cloud.

ZA approving this deal means diddly squat, JP though... One would think that after that approval it would be plain sailing. Ironically Sony is opposing, while JP is okay.

If the deal goes through after this I'll be v surprised.

Oh well, back to animal crossing...
yup

Blizzard of yore is dead so IDGAF about this.
 
Huh? I think you're misunderstanding their reason. They actually sided with MS when it came to console exclusivity arguments and argued that MS simply wouldn't remove CoD from PS because it would be financially stupid.
Did they?

Their argument is stupid as neither Microsoft nor Sony can ever act like a monopoly on gaming wherever it is. And gaming is an absolute luxury. If M$ don't provide a good service, people won't use it and their investments in cloud gaming will tank.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter