Microsoft-Activision-Blizzard Discussion Thread (Part 1)

Everything that is done out of spite is bad. It is like buying something for the sake of buying - no logic behind that.

How much would Oculus achieve if Meta was not trying to throw money at them if FTC proclaimed that Meta could not buy them because they had resources to make VR themselves? We would have several companies doing VR but none of them could push forward due to lack of resources while Meta would waste years reinventing the wheel

Well no, because Facebook would have just approached Oculus with either a partnership or poached their employees to start their own VR company.

That makes them seem like a rather lame duck in all honesty. Activision is prepared to fight for the deal, are they counting on acquisitions to be put it in the “too hard basket” or something? Unless im misunderstanding this would not face rich companies with prestigious law firms, but rather punish businesses that cant afford to bring a case.

1 Like

It is very strange when I see my country (Brazil) get the decision right quickly while the countries that should be more organized look like a big mess.


It is because in countries like the US for insistance, there is a more attention placed on the dominance of ‘big tech’ that I feel is not the case in Brazil.

I get the impression that Sony’s relationship with Activision is going to be permanently damaged no matter the outcome.

Being lame duck won’t stop them.

I can see see them writing a lawsuit that ABK acquisition is too much for the “nascent Game Pass market” (let’s say they will define it the same way) like they did with Meta/Within and that “Microsoft should invest in opening studios and hiring people because they have resources for that”.

The irony is that it does not benefit connsumer at this point, but regulators (FTC) went away from that some time ago.

Sony’s arguments - while awkward - are appealing to the regulators from CMA to FTC. There we have “nascent markets”, “big tech” and so oon.

By that logic FTC can sue any company. “Rather than buying, invest in creation of this or that”

Even if they argue that regarding those markets, gamepass does not even have 50% market share. There are simply too many competitors that already have substantial subscriber bases.

An argument regarding nascent markets where they dont have a majority market share either would not be legal under current US law either and they would probably lose in court on day 1.

1 Like

Well, Sony was arguing that Game Pass was having like 60-70% of market share no? Every relatively new market is a monopoly essentially as nobody else is doing that.


That was specific to Brazil from what I recall and that was mostly because other offerings were likely not supported there.

The big issue with how they do things for me, is that in order for the build it yourself arguments to make sense it would have to involve 2 companies competing in the same space. Where the #1 company(Sony) sees competition from the company in 2nd(Nintendo) or 3rd(Microsoft) because of things they’re doing differently, and it tries to buy the any of the others to lessen the competion(like Sony buying Nintendo, instead of bringing back vita) and offer those features.

In MSFT/ABK case, I think this doesn’t exist, as Microsoft is the company offering the better features and buying to compete with the #1 company. While new companies are entering the space and buying to be competitive with everyone and new studios keep getting funded.

Sony claimed that in the Brazilian market. I wont claim to specifically know the Brazilian market, but it may well be considerably different than the US market. Otherwise Sony just straight up lies, because we know the market contains at minimum the below competitors and those competitors have subscriber numbers that do not correspond to even a 30% market share for gamepass.

In the US, I know all of these multi-game subscription services are available:

GeForce Now (14 million subscribers)
EA Access (12 million subscribers)
Nintendo Online (36 million subscribers)
PS Plus (45 million subscribers)
Gamepass (29 million subscribers)
Luna Plus (? subscribers)
Ubisoft Plus (? subscribers)
Humble Choice (? subscribers)

There are also services that are most definitely multi-game subscription services but I’ve seen them not included because of reasons before like Netflix, Google Play Pass, Apple Arcade.

1 Like

With whole Within/Meta case we had a company that had Beat Saber (Halo) and produced VR headset (Xbox) and Within (ABKCOD). And FTC still came out with the idea to sue claiming that Meta should have invested in making fitness app. We can apply the same with ABK/Microsoft.

It is more a question if FTC is willing to go against Microsoft and (what an irony) unions :joy:

I will check it again.

Either way, the answer is either, Sony lied or it only applied to the Brazilian multi-game subscription service market. We know from Sony’s filings that they have fabricated information dozens of times, so I would not be surprised to see them lieing.


Meta is the dominant market force in VR platforms though, they basically are that market and only face real competition from Sony who is focused on a niche (gaming) in that market. Meta controls 70% of that platform market.

Additionally, Within does control 70% of their admittedly narrowly defined market.

If we look at Xbox, they do not control 70% of any platform market, they dont even control that for subscription services. Also, even with extremely narrow focus on fps online shooters (CODs most narrow definition), they dont control 70% of that market. Also, if the FTC is unable to include fps and has to just say online shooters, then COD sits at somewhere less than 20% of that market.


Annualized fps market. COD is like 100% of that market. Boom.




Xbox folks:



Well played, now delete this before the FTC see it :sweat_smile:

1 Like

Essentially closing this deal is good for competition, consumers and even regulators.