Feds Likely To Challenge Microsoft's $69 Billion Activision Takeover (politico.com) 26
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Politico: The Federal Trade Commission is likely to file an antitrust lawsuit to block Microsoft's $69 billion takeover of video game giant Activision Blizzard, maker of the hit games Call of Duty and Candy Crush, according to three people with knowledge of the matter. A lawsuit would be the FTC's biggest move yet under Chair Lina Khan to rein in the power of the world's largest technology companies. It would also be a major black mark for Microsoft, which has positioned itself as a white knight of sorts on antitrust issues in the tech sector after going through its own grueling regulatory antitrust battles around the world more than two decades ago.
A lawsuit challenging the deal is not guaranteed, and the FTC's four commissioners have yet to vote out a complaint or meet with lawyers for the companies, two of the people said. However, the FTC staff reviewing the deal are skeptical of the companies' arguments, those people said. The investigation remains ongoing, but much of the heavy lifting is completed, including depositions of Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella and Activision head Bobby Kotick, the people with knowledge of the investigation said. If the agency does move ahead with a case, it could come as soon as next month, said the people, all of whom were granted anonymity to discuss a confidential matter.
Central to the FTC's concerns is whether acquiring Activision would give Microsoft an unfair boost in the video game market. Microsoft's Xbox is number three to the industry-leading Sony Interactive Entertainment and its PlayStation console. Sony, however, has emerged as the deal's primary opponent, telling the FTC and regulators in other countries that if Microsoft made hit games like Call of Duty exclusive to its platforms Sony would be significantly disadvantaged. [...] To a lesser extent, Google is also an opponent of the deal, according to two of the people with knowledge of the matter. The company has argued that Microsoft has purposely degraded the quality of its Game Pass subscription service when used with Google's Chrome operating system, and owning Activision would further its incentive to do so, ultimately steering hardware sales towards Microsoft and away from Google, the people said. Last month, Microsoft Xbox chief Phil Spencer said he intends to continue to ship Call of Duty games on PlayStation "as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to."
Microsoft spokesperson David Cuddy said the company "is prepared to address the concerns of regulators, including the FTC, and Sony to ensure the deal closes with confidence. We'll still trail Sony and Tencent in the market after the deal closes, and together Activision and Xbox will benefit gamers and developers and make the industry more competitive."
"Any suggestion that the transaction could lead to anticomp effects is completely absurd. This merger will benefit gamers and the US gaming industry, especially as we face increasingly stiff competition from abroad," added Activision spokesperson Joe Christinat. "We are committed to continuing to work cooperatively with regulators around the globe to allow the transaction to proceed, but will not hesitate to fight to defend the transaction if required."
A lawsuit challenging the deal is not guaranteed, and the FTC's four commissioners have yet to vote out a complaint or meet with lawyers for the companies, two of the people said. However, the FTC staff reviewing the deal are skeptical of the companies' arguments, those people said. The investigation remains ongoing, but much of the heavy lifting is completed, including depositions of Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella and Activision head Bobby Kotick, the people with knowledge of the investigation said. If the agency does move ahead with a case, it could come as soon as next month, said the people, all of whom were granted anonymity to discuss a confidential matter.
Central to the FTC's concerns is whether acquiring Activision would give Microsoft an unfair boost in the video game market. Microsoft's Xbox is number three to the industry-leading Sony Interactive Entertainment and its PlayStation console. Sony, however, has emerged as the deal's primary opponent, telling the FTC and regulators in other countries that if Microsoft made hit games like Call of Duty exclusive to its platforms Sony would be significantly disadvantaged. [...] To a lesser extent, Google is also an opponent of the deal, according to two of the people with knowledge of the matter. The company has argued that Microsoft has purposely degraded the quality of its Game Pass subscription service when used with Google's Chrome operating system, and owning Activision would further its incentive to do so, ultimately steering hardware sales towards Microsoft and away from Google, the people said. Last month, Microsoft Xbox chief Phil Spencer said he intends to continue to ship Call of Duty games on PlayStation "as long as there's a PlayStation out there to ship to."
Microsoft spokesperson David Cuddy said the company "is prepared to address the concerns of regulators, including the FTC, and Sony to ensure the deal closes with confidence. We'll still trail Sony and Tencent in the market after the deal closes, and together Activision and Xbox will benefit gamers and developers and make the industry more competitive."
"Any suggestion that the transaction could lead to anticomp effects is completely absurd. This merger will benefit gamers and the US gaming industry, especially as we face increasingly stiff competition from abroad," added Activision spokesperson Joe Christinat. "We are committed to continuing to work cooperatively with regulators around the globe to allow the transaction to proceed, but will not hesitate to fight to defend the transaction if required."
App Stores (Score:2)
Unquestioned distribution monopoly on Google and Apple platforms but FTC has major concerns about Activision?
So bought and paid for.
Microsoft is cementing their DoD ties which is sensible given the trend in geopolitics.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, nothing says security for DoD like Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
hmm (Score:1)
The Federal Trade Commission is likely to file an antitrust lawsuit to block Microsoft's $69 billion takeover of video game giant Activision Blizzard, maker of the hit games Call of Duty and Candy Crush
Call of Duty was made by Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Sledgehammer Games, and Raven Software. Candy Crush was made by King. Blizzturd is the publisher, they did not make those games, they published them. Don't aggrandize those pricks.
Re: (Score:3)
Activision is the publisher, not Blizzard. Blizzard is a former dev/publisher now under Activision's direct management. Blizzard actually has dev resources unlike Activision.
Re: (Score:1)
Blizzturd is what I call the merger of Activision and Blizzard, since nobody seemed to like ActiveTurd which I thought was the best name.
Blizzard was shit before the merger, Activision even worse, hence...
Re: hmm (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be in a bad mood to call out abusive actors?
Re: (Score:2)
It's important to make accurate distinctions here. Blizzard is now-infamous for the abusive behavior of senior staff/executives in their dev house. I've seen people assume that similar shenanigans occurred in other dev shops associated with Activision, such as Raven or Infinity Ward, which is generally not true. Those dev houses may have their own problems, who knows? But they aren't Blizzard and have nothing to do with Blizzard other than the fact that Activision is the parent company.
It does not help t
They need to sue all the Blizzard assholes too... (Score:1)
...for insider trading, as well as stalking and harassment of their customers.
Slow march to Duopoly (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Despite what the feds say (Score:3, Insightful)
Point is it matters. The parties are different, but one party spends a lot of money convincing you they're not
Re: (Score:2)
What's interesting is there is a definite anti-corporate sentiment amongst the conservative base of voters and the far right in particular as part of a rejection of neo-conservatism but it's this somewhat nebulous anger that the base nor the party leaders know what to do with because doing any actual anti-corporate action would basically be a tacit agreement and concession with the "liberals" and involves actions they are "supposed" to be against, such as more regulations, tax policies and executive agency
COMMIE LOCKDOWNS (Score:1)
Mostly Sony's Fault (Score:2)
They're famous for console lock-ins and refusing to do cross-platform play; things that are more harmful to consumers than this. Yet they cry foul. Then if this deal gets blocked...Sony will just buy Activision for themselves and make every Activision title a PS5 exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah... I read the comment, but didn't internalize the title at first, and thought, "Microsoft is famous for that? I thought Sony was king" Thankfully I looked twice before jumping to my reply.
Microsoft is giving a multi-year commitment to not being jackasses with the product line... and I think that's all you can really ask. You can't ask any company to commit to anything indefinitely.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is giving a multi-year commitment to not being jackasses with the product line... and I think that's all you can really ask. You can't ask any company to commit to anything indefinitely.
You can ask every company to not behave anticompetitively forever and ever amen. Now, where's my unicorn?
Cognitive Dissonance (Score:2)
I am not particularly in favour of over-consolidation in what should be a healthy, well-populated ecosystem of competitors... but... Blizzard needs saving. Badly. They need some very tough love.
Re: Cognitive Dissonance (Score:2)
Blizzard unfortunately is just in name only, the important people in its history have all long departed with many starting or joining new studios.
I can appreciate the new generation of devs who are there and I am sure they carry some reverence for the history of the brand, many of them probably played classic Blizzard titles but it's obvious the culture has shifted once Activision effectively took over.
Really that was the merger that should have been stopped, at least from a players point of view.
The upside
Unexpected laugh (Score:2)
Made me blurt an unexpected laugh in my quiet grumpy office this morning. Good one!
White knight? (Score:2)
Well... (Score:1)
On one hand, I don't really want Microsoft to get bigger. On the other hand, Activision Blizzard is such an absolute toxic environment, and their QA is non-existent, that maybe Microsoft will fix the company. Activision Blizzard hasn't published an actual quality, hit game in over a decade.
costs (Score:1)