Tbh this is exactly my thought. CMA could have blocked the deal straightaway instead of giving the opportunity to negotiate remedies. They could literally state the deal is extremely anticompetitive and we won’t accept any remedies. Also, the immediate response from MS told me they definitely foresee today’s situation and probably already working on the possible solution.
A different entity would need to own the IP for that to be viable. If MS still owned the IP then a publisher who is a third party has zero power.
What you are proposing is MS own the cost of development but nothing else…not sure that’s been thought through.
- ATVI down 1.6%
- MS up 2.87%
1 Like
After the CMA news looks like this deal will go through.
People seemed really confused to the order of things and previous rumors etc.
CMA could have outright killed the deal today, tons of rumors this was going to happen
- CMS did not kill the deal at all and said it was open to remedies and gave a list of things they could consider
This is just Phase 1 for the CMA, they did not kill the deal and things now go to Phase 2.
- Phase 2 is where things like MS has worked guaranteed COD 10 years on all platforms including new platform like Nintendo etc. come into play and are considered.
MS has publicly stated they will do this 10 year deal, but in phase 1 this is not something the CMA considered as that is part of Phase 2. So MS already done alot of the work on this before the CMA decision and I’d say they are ahead of things on this front.
So the fact the CMA did not kill the deal outright today is a big win and the fact MS is already prepared to make major concessions seem to indicate this thing will go through.
One note on the CMA findings and the process itself. The Uk need to get their shit together with the CMA as you cannot have one single entity hold the cards for international business decisions like this without the ability to appeal.
Also what the Fuck is with Sony and holding the cards for the ENTIRE gaming industry that they feel like everyone has to cater to THEIR needs as a corporation?
Sony is NOT the gaming industry, their was gaming decades before Sony entered the market and their will be gaming after Sony leaves the market. WTF is with these agencies bowing down to Sony like some gamefaqs fanboys?
I swear Sony has brain washed a generation of people to think Sony = gaming and Sony gets so pissy when anyone even tries to compete in this industry, Screw them, gees they are a nightmare of a company.
The world does not owe Sony to ALWAYS and FOREVER be the market leader in gaming, Nintendo has been outselling them for years on hardware and Sony still thinks it’s is the forever leader.
7 Likes
I think this part depends on what kind of support network it needs. If they can find a potential buyer for Call of Duty in an existing publisher then there is room to keep studios that serve as partial support for Call of Duty - as anyone like EA or Take two can find alternative solutions for support. If they branch off Call of Duty into it’s own company then they would likely need more of a built in support structure - you might be looking at something closer to an independent Activision then. I’d hope for the former, as it still could leave Microsoft with a chunk of Activision and it’s associated IPs.
Still, I think the B and the K would be worth the sacrifice, especially considering Xbox presence on PC and the willingness to move towards mobile. In that case, conditions for the deal would have to be renegotiated for sure and I sure hope the hypothetical COD factory will count with more than 2 weeks to be created…
Why? To highlight that either he has no idea what he’s talking about or that he is intentionally trying to get people whipped up into a frenzy? I would say that MS already has a pretty firm grip on cloud gaming and if they do ever become the only real option that would be harming gamers that can’t afford expensive consoles.
When the findings first came out, everyone kind of jumped the gun (myself included), because it seemed only structural remedies were on offer (something that has been drilled into everyone for a long time regarding the CMA).
It seems a few lawyers and other people have weighed in and digested the findings with more positive outlooks than the original knee jerk reaction (eg its dead etc)
2 Likes
No. Again you have the problem that it’s control of the IP that matters and a spun out call of duty would not be able to sit in MS and would also necessarily take IP with it.
Interesting
- In most CMA merger investigations, the detailed assessment of remedies begins only after the Provisional Findings – where the CMA provisionally concludes that a Merger gives to an SLC (or SLCs). While the CMA’s guidance notes that merging parties have the option to engage in discussions about potential remedies before the Provisional Findings (‘without prejudice’ to the question of whether the Merger gives rise to an SLC),9 there is no requirement for merging parties to do so – and the Parties in this case have not yet proposed any potential remedies to the CMA.
10 Likes
The other entity would not need to own the IP. There are many instances where publsihers are publishing games but do not own the IP. There would be some sort or agreement that would need to be worked out, likely some percentage of profit sharing or licensing fee.
There’s no point discussing this, it won’t happen.
Microsoft didn’t spend $69 billion like you would at a shop, they moved it on a financial sheet from “cash” to “assets”. If they aren’t acquiring an asset that matches that valuation then it’s not financially viable.
They will fight on behavioural remedies alone IMO. Perhaps even up to enforceable agreements of complete multiplatform support on CoD.
3 Likes
Same. 10 year should be reasonable for consoles Just agree that Nvidia streaming will be honored as per purchase and PS+ can have CoD at market rate. $70 per PSN subscriber day 1 and dropping $10 every subsequent year post release.
Sony will never pay MS for day 1.
I remember seeing a report from a lawyer firm saying that the CMA was not convinved of the proposes MS made during their negotiations in phase 2 (or something like that) So this means that report was in fact not truth at all.
Thats why you wait for official confirmation from the involved parts.
But that wouldn’t be a structural remedy. It would simply be a behavioural one. It’s no different than signing a contract saying we will put cod on x platforms for y years. It’s behavioural because if in 20 years MS decides ‘nah we don’t want to do that anymore’ nobody can do anything as it’s not structurally baked in.
A third party publishing deal where MS retain the IP would be exactly the same. There is no obvious long term guarantee with it. Since MS would retain the IP control.
Sorry but this is simply not true at all. There is a potentially non structured way forward now. It’s not easy but the door has been opened.
Yes, I said to work not that it was unsustainable. Microsoft has the financial strength to sustain this business however work would mean attaining their goals. Phil himself said so. I do believe they want a large mobile publisher to help them bring their games to mobile as the ones they did in the past seemed to have failed or fizzled out.
Sony would not be an eligible entity to buy Call of Duty based on the criteria for any divestiture that the CMA put forth.
The CMA said that any divestiture can not be to an entity that also raises competition concerns and the entity taking on the divestiture needs to be reasonably expected to stand on its own and function at a comparable level to today.
Sony easily raises competition concerns, so they fail the first part of that.
1 Like
It is a structural remedy. Behavioral remedies change the way that the entity behave. Structural remedies fundamentally change the setup of the organization. Today, Activision is a publisher of Call of Duty, in that structural remedy they would no longer be able to publish Call of Duty. Someone else would have to do it.
The divestures don’t work at all. It would be nice if Microsoft could just spin off Activision and keep Blizzard and King, but I doubt Activision would agree to that. The price would also be probably more than Blizzard and King combined which begs the question who would buy it. Behavioral remedy is the only thing I see here. In the coming hours to days we are going to see the CMA being blasted from unions to Chamber of commerce and the like, this might push them to accept behavioral remedies.