The long document from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) explaining why the handbrake was pulled at theacquisition of Activision Blizzard on the part of Microsoft, placing conditions that we imagine are difficult to accept by the Redmond company (currently if Call of Duty and Blizzard are spun off from Activision, what’s left of it?), fully embraces the position expressed by Sony on the transaction, but not making it clear what you are trying to protect.
In fact, in the 76 paragraphs that make it up, there are several misunderstandings, let’s call them that, which frankly we didn’t expect. For example in the fourth paragraph it is stated that Xbox e PlayStation they run side by side, when in reality it is quite known that Sony is dominant in the console market (just look at the numbers of the companies’ financial results in recent years). Furthermore, the prejudice towards Microsoft and its alleged plan to make Call of Duty exclusive for Xbox (or with substantial advantages for Xbox) is reiterated, denied several times by Spencer and his cohorts, even with very concrete gestures such as the agreement with Nintendo to bring the series on its consoles (Nintendo which, evidently, does not deserve protection and which, as we will see, is being denigrated again).
As far as cloud gaming is concerned, the CMA talks about the advantages deriving from the launch of games such as Call of Duty and World of Warcraft on Microsoft services, not considering that the former are cross-platform and that the latter only exists on PC. Furthermore, speaking of Xbox’s leadership in the cloud, we forget the detail that Microsoft has obtained it by investing heavily in this technology over the years, where direct competitors have been in hiding because they are strong in their dominant position on the traditional market. In fact, Microsoft has moved into an area that others have ignored or undervalued and hence the current advantage.
That said, it is from paragraph 42 onwards that the most controversial considerations emerge. In paragraph 42 the availability of COD on the different consoles is examined. It is noted that the series is only available on Xbox and PlayStation, because “Nintendo’s consoles do not compete directly” with the other two. The reason? The specs of its consoles and the type of titles it sells, more geared towards families. “Nintendo does not currently offer COD, and we have seen no evidence to suggest that its consoles are technically capable of delivering the same gameplay quality as the Xbox and PlayStation in the foreseeable future.” Obvious, one might say. In fact, we do not believe that the agreement between Microsoft and Nintendo refers to 2023 or 2024, but to the years that followed and, probably, are linked to the launch of the new console from Mario’s house. Also because Microsoft would never be able to make Nintendo Switch versions of the CODs in such a short time, even if they wanted to. The CMA knows how it works video game development?
Finally, the six paragraphs spent explaining the position of PlayStation (42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47) are surprising, in which it is said that COD is fundamental for the platform and that in the event that the franchise becomes exclusive Xbox ( thing that, we recall, has been denied several times even with the preparation of contracts that bound Microsoft to leave the franchise on PlayStation for at least another ten years), PlayStation would lose users (in the order of 24% of COD players on the platform), that they would go to the other side. In addition, those who stay would spend less, going to dent Sony’s revenues.
Wait, is the CMA telling us that in order to protect competition, we need to defend Sony’s dominant position? Shouldn’t those who buy CODs on Xbox have advantages in order not to damage the Japanese multinational, which pays to give advantages to those who buy them on PlayStation? And again: to protect competition, Nintendo is prevented from even trying to compete? Both make games for families and have hardware that is a shack …
Of course, if the thesis is that COD would become one strategic resource for Microsoft, we already knew that then. After all, if it wants to spend almost 70 billion dollars for the acquisition, it is certainly not to lose users, but to gain them.
