Microsoft announced on January 18 the purchase of Activision Blizzard for 69,000 million dollars, 65,756 million euros in exchange, surrounded by a great controversy that completely silenced the gaming scene. Now, the US Federal Trade Commission (Federal Trade Commission) has filed a lawsuit against this takeover so as not to provoke an attempted oligopoly in the video game industry. As a result, Microsoft and Activision will issue a rebuttal defending their project in court for deeming the suit unconstitutional.
But is this merger between two giant companies in the world of video games really good or bad for the consumer? Time will tell. At a corporate level, this movement is seen as a strategic incentive to accelerate the creation of video games, being one of the main goals to satisfy gamers. At the consumer level, most users endorse this association at the mercy of new studies.
MICROSOFT INVOLVING CATOMBS
After the purchase of Bethesda in September 2021 for $7.5 billion, no one would think that Microsoft would make one of the stratospheric acquisitions that would revolutionize the video game industry. Earlier this year, the North American company caused a great stir in the world by announcing the largest acquisition in history: 69,000 million dollars by Activision Blizzard, distributor of titles known as Call of Duty or the Diablo saga.
Sony, its main rival, was the first to rule against this merger in US courts. Recently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) did the same through a complaint to block the operation, considering it an act detrimental to competition in the video game industry. This was supported by the director of the US regulatory body, Holly Vedova, adding that with this lawsuit they are trying to “prevent Microsoft from gaining control of video games and using it to damage competition”.
For the FTC, this move is considered unsuitable for the industry, emphasizing that it is contempt for the consumer, as Microsoft’s corporate policy will cause changes in the gameplay of Activision games. “This move will lead to Activision cutting prices, degrading the user experience, which is harmful to consumers by changing the terms of service.”
MICROSOFT PRESENTS ITS REPLY
Microsoft has already argued against the arguments of the FTC confirming that the purchase of Activision Blizzard is a good opportunity to provide players with new playable experiences, as well as enhance the development of video games at high levels without harming the competition. Microsoft chairman Brad Smith stressed that this deal represents a movement that will broaden the competition and ensure that they will defend it tooth and nail in court.
However, if Satya Nadella’s owning entity wants to own products like the entire Call of Duty saga or franchises like World of Warcraft, it will have to negotiate some concessions with the FTC. For this Phil Spencer, head of the Xbox video game division, has already claimed to have established contacts with Sony to try to reach an agreement with the main licenses, which cover a large audience on PlayStation. “Sony is an important part of our industry and we value our relationship,” said Spencer.
Therefore, Microsoft argues that it cannot afford to make Activision games exclusive as this would result in financial losses for the company. On the other hand, the FTC doesn’t trust Microsoft’s word for it and calculates that it will withhold content from its gaming rivals sooner or later.
SONY DOES NOT WAIT FOR REASON
For its part, Sony has no intention of allowing Microsoft to acquire Activision. In fact, the Japanese company is paying with the same coin and its behavior towards the competition continues to be at least exemplary, taking into account that it beats Microsoft in console sales. Thus, the company that owns well-known identities like God of War or Uncharted has gotten away with numerous occasions by paying for exclusivity in cross-platform games that have taken several years to release on other platforms.
In addition, Sony CEO Jim Ryan believes the deal with Activision is a threat to the gaming space, since he doesn’t trust Microsoft’s word that it could turn Call of Duty into an Xbox-exclusive game. . . On the other hand, Ryan boasted that Microsoft has nothing to do with its exclusive Xbox Game Pass service, calling it a tool that will never overshadow PlayStation.
In turn, Brad Smith clarified that this situation would be economically irrational: “A vital part of Activision Blizzard’s Call of Duty revenue comes from sales of PlayStation games. Given the popularity of crossplay, it would also be disastrous for the Call of Duty franchise and Xbox itself, alienating millions of gamers.”
