EU Wants To Know If Microsoft Will Block Rivals After Activision Deal (reuters.com) 38
EU antitrust regulators are asking games developers whether Microsoft will be incentivized to block rivals' access to "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard's best-selling games, according to an EU document seen by Reuters. From the report: EU antitrust regulators are due to make a preliminary decision by Nov. 8 on whether to clear Microsoft's proposed $69 billion acquisition of Activision. The EU competition enforcer also asked if Activision's trove of user data would give the U.S. software giant a competitive advantage in the development, publishing and distribution of computer and console games, the EU document shows. The planned acquisition, the biggest in the gaming industry, will help Microsoft better compete with leaders Tencent and Sony. After its decision next month the European Commission is expected to open a four-month long investigation, underscoring regulatory concerns about Big Tech acquisitions.
Games developers, publishers and distributors were asked whether the deal would affect their bargaining power regarding the terms for selling console and PC games via Microsoft's Xbox and its cloud game streaming service Game Pass. Regulators also wanted to know if there would be sufficient alternative suppliers in the market following the deal and also in the event Microsoft decides to make Activision's games exclusively available on its Xbox, its Games Pass and its cloud game streaming services. They asked if such exclusivity clauses would reinforce Microsoft's Windows operating system versus rivals, and whether the addition of Activision to its PC operating system, cloud computing services and game-related software tools gives it an advantage in the video gaming industry. They asked how important the Call of Duty franchise is for distributors of console games, third-party multi-game subscription services on computers and providers of cloud game streaming services.
Games developers, publishers and distributors were asked whether the deal would affect their bargaining power regarding the terms for selling console and PC games via Microsoft's Xbox and its cloud game streaming service Game Pass. Regulators also wanted to know if there would be sufficient alternative suppliers in the market following the deal and also in the event Microsoft decides to make Activision's games exclusively available on its Xbox, its Games Pass and its cloud game streaming services. They asked if such exclusivity clauses would reinforce Microsoft's Windows operating system versus rivals, and whether the addition of Activision to its PC operating system, cloud computing services and game-related software tools gives it an advantage in the video gaming industry. They asked how important the Call of Duty franchise is for distributors of console games, third-party multi-game subscription services on computers and providers of cloud game streaming services.
we PROMISE! (Score:2)
So... we want to know, if we let you do this, will you do that? No we'd never do that! We promise!
Can we get that in writing?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
uh huh...
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, no. This is not the US where greed and stupidity has completely killed anti-trust. Unless MS makes this at least very plausible, they will be denied permission to buy Activision.
No, they want to rubber stamp it (Score:1)
For fuck's sake people, vote in your primary election. There's been pro-consumer candidates in every election I've voted in but they always loose to the corporate whores.
a. Stop voting based on name recognition.
b. Stop voting based on who has the best adverts.
c. Stop voting based on who has the most fun rallies.
d. Google the candidates! Find out what their positions are!
Re: (Score:2)
EU regulators? Hardly.
The Bizarre Thing to me (Score:3)
Re:The Bizarre Thing to me (Score:4, Interesting)
there's more to it: microsoft have been merging login accounts by buying up various *other* companies and merging them - without consent - into a single unified "microsoft passport" system. which is not appropriate in the first place, but is even less appropriate in the context where someone (myself) registered the *exact same email address* on a personal service (game) *and a business service* (skype) both of which got bought.
this may not sound particularly relevant until you appreciate that i registered the personal service (game) on my daughter's behalf (so she could play minecraft). now all of a sudden she potentially has access to my *business* confidential login because microsoft merged the accounts without my consent.
Re: (Score:3)
I see your point here, BUT... you should not have used a "you" account for a "her" activity.
Good information security practices say that shared IDs are bad. You should have created a separate ID specific to her. Clearly you thought you were -but by tying the account to the same email address (as the base UID) you created, albeit indirectly, a shared ID. It was convenient for you to do it this way, but it lead to this situation where she has access to your business information.
Email addresses are commonly
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine the world where you effectively surrender control of what your young child gets to a massive global conglomerate that openly professes ideological bent to their actions by letting said children having their own accounts obfuscated or even blocked from parents. Children get their own account when they're ready according to the parent. Not a moment earlier. To do otherwise is child abuse.
Much less being berated for good parenting of not allowing this. This is not about "convenience". This is a
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell are you talking about?
I never suggested anything of the sort.
You make the account in their name, not your name. YOU STILL HAVE CONTROL OF THE ACCOUNT.
This does not require giving up supervision of your children.
Do you think that businesses give up all control of employees actions because they don't have everyone use the root account for everything?
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it is rather the EU's doing, and can be chalked up to politicians' understanding of the public's attention span. Not only do they rapidly forget, but they have a tendency to fail to pay attention in the first place. You've got to get their attention somehow, and CoD is currently the most visible franchise involved so it's the easiest way to get that attention.
It's also a pretty good choice on a historical basis because CoD games in particular have or haven't been exclusives at different times, and
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians already crafted the relevant legislation and forgot about it half a decade or more ago. Have you seen the voting process in EU Parliament? There's a reason why it's considered a complete joke and no more than a fig leaf on aristocratic rule by Commission. Most politicians often can't even track what they're voting for, because voting tempo when large package is pushed through is something like 20 seconds for each point for hours at a time.
People who actually have to know these things and care ab
Seems like normal due diligence (Score:2)
The question is whether the people who make the actual decisions know or care this research even exists. Only time will tell. The EU seems better at it than most places though.
Re: (Score:2)
The "people making the decision" will be the anti-trust regulator...
Re: (Score:2)
Not even remotely how this works. People making the decision are the legislators and the court system. Anti-trust regulators merely argue alongside the legislation created by legislators in court.
Because these sort of things always end up in court. Too much money at stake.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha, no. You seem to have no clue how EU law actually works. The "decision" is whether this violated the law or not and the regulator has some deiscretion. All the court designated for complaints can later check, if asked to, is whether the decision of the regulator made was within their discretion in interpreting the law or not. And if it obviously was, whoever wants to sue will not even get the complaint accepted for decision by the court responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
And your point of disagreement with me is?
As long as it makes money (Score:2)
That's the reason why Microsoft won't block Call of Duty. But you can't put that in writing because gamers are really fickle people and some might decide to boycott Call of Duty because it's "eww Xbox". and sales plunge from the hundreds of millions to under a million. (I wish I was kidding about the fanboyism but sadly, it's actually true.)
But as long as the PS5 keeps making lots of money in CoD sales, I'm sure Microsoft will not want to throw away millions of dollars by making it exclusive. I'm sure Sony'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Boycotting because "eww Microsoft" is literally the opposite of fanboyism.
Buying Sony because "eww Microsoft" is fanboyism.
Noooo! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why Halo is ok on just xbox, MGS is ok just on PS, and hundreds of others that are that way, or have time limited exclusive games ... but if it happens to this small set of cookie cutter copy/paste the last version with new maps made games, you lose your shit??
Because Halo started out to be Xbox exclusive, and Activions games did not.
If a merger leads to a change that negatively affects the market it's something anti-trust is meant to stop.
Re: (Score:2)
Halo started out to be Xbox exclusive, and Activions games did not.
That's not accurate. Before Microsoft acquired Bungie, Halo was supposed to be cross-platform PC, Mac, and maybe console. Halo's sort-of-predecessor and Bungie's prior FPS series Marathon was PC and Mac. When Microsoft bought Bungie, Halo became an Xbox-only title. Then it was later released for Windows, but never for MacOS. Now we expect Halo titles to be available on both Xbox and Windows, but in fact if Microsoft had never bought Bungie, at least some Halo titles would have been on the Mac as well.
If a merger leads to a change that negatively affects the market it's something anti-trust is meant to stop.
Didn't
Re: (Score:3)
Except
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I missed that, thanks. Too bad my old mac died, it's outside getting rained on until I figure out where I can recycle it for free. My only local transfer station is charging now... I live in CA, I already paid. Now they want me to pay again.
Anyhoo, Bungie would have been more likely to produce more Mac and perhaps Linux versions, with Microsoft all we got was Windows and Windows-Console. Full disclosure, I have MCC in "my" Steam "library".
COD is a zombie game... (Score:2)
No pity (Score:1)
Console exclusives have been the norm for decades. I really feel no pity for Sony after Street Fighter V, etc, etc. If there really needs to be a CoD game for Sony then they should make a competitor. They have the resources.