The sad thing is, the "system in place" are made of people. And system, law, justice, fairness has all been compromised due to people that suppose to uphold these are compromised and cannot be trusted.
The sad thing is, the "system in place" are made of people. And system, law, justice, fairness has all been compromised due to people that suppose to uphold these are compromised and cannot be trusted.
From the lawyer
——————
There is a new document from the CMA: a summary of third party calls (4 pages)
Some highlights (there is more):
- Calls or meetings with six third parties during the period from October 2022 to January 2023.
- Each of these third parties is a competitor or a potential competitor with the merged entity in either console gaming services or cloud gaming services.
- Topics addressed: The third party's relationship with Activision, Microsoft, and any other game developers and publishers; game publishing; cloud gaming, multi-game subscription services, operating system, the merger, etc.
- Some third parties referred to Microsoft Xbox, Sony Play Station and Nintendo Switch as competitor platforms, though Nintendo was perceived as differentiated on several bases.
- Two third parties identified the availability of attractive first and third-party content as key to a platform's success.
- One third party characterised Call of Duty as unique and a driver of console purchase decision-making given its fast development cycle and large, highly engaged audience.
- One third party contended that Microsoft's recent acquisition behaviour, including its acquisition of Bethesda and subsequent platform-publishing policy, demonstrates a strategy aimed at foreclosing rival gaming platforms, which would harm consumers
- One third party contended that Microsoft is already dominant in the multi-game subscription space and that the Merger would entrench that position.
- The majority of third parties viewed cloud gaming as a nascent market. They suggested that its success will be dependent upon the resolution of a number of technical problems including latency, bandwidth and infrastructure. Some of these third parties expressed confidence that these problems will be solved, and that cloud gaming will become a meaningful market, while the others characterised cloud gaming as already technically viable and an existing market.
- All bar one of the third parties (and all of those active in cloud gaming services) identified content, particularly AAA content, as an important element in a successful cloud gaming offering, and noted that Activision controls a significant catalogue of AAA content.
- Some third parties discussed Proton as a compatibility layer for Windows games to run on Linux-based operating systems, alternately expressing optimism regarding the use of Proton as an alternative and considering it sub-optimal due to legal and technical hurdles.
- Two third parties commented on Microsoft's combined portfolio of Windows OS, the Azure cloud platform, its console strength, and its multi-game subscription business and expressed concerns about the impacts on competition of adding Activision's content and studio development capacity to this portfolio.
- Two of the third parties did not express concerns about the Merger, while three contended that the Merger would have a negative impact on competition, including by affording Microsoft the ability and incentive to foreclose potential and existing rivals in the console buy-to-play, console multi-game subscription and cloud gaming spaces. One third party commented that it was too early to determine what the impact of the Merger would be.
There are some extra bits of info, but these would be the main points.
No wonder that cloud gaming was considered a relevant market if the majority of third parties interviewed believed so.
——————
There is a new document from the CMA: a summary of third party calls (4 pages)
Some highlights (there is more):
- Calls or meetings with six third parties during the period from October 2022 to January 2023.
- Each of these third parties is a competitor or a potential competitor with the merged entity in either console gaming services or cloud gaming services.
- Topics addressed: The third party's relationship with Activision, Microsoft, and any other game developers and publishers; game publishing; cloud gaming, multi-game subscription services, operating system, the merger, etc.
- Some third parties referred to Microsoft Xbox, Sony Play Station and Nintendo Switch as competitor platforms, though Nintendo was perceived as differentiated on several bases.
- Two third parties identified the availability of attractive first and third-party content as key to a platform's success.
- One third party characterised Call of Duty as unique and a driver of console purchase decision-making given its fast development cycle and large, highly engaged audience.
- One third party contended that Microsoft's recent acquisition behaviour, including its acquisition of Bethesda and subsequent platform-publishing policy, demonstrates a strategy aimed at foreclosing rival gaming platforms, which would harm consumers
- One third party contended that Microsoft is already dominant in the multi-game subscription space and that the Merger would entrench that position.
- The majority of third parties viewed cloud gaming as a nascent market. They suggested that its success will be dependent upon the resolution of a number of technical problems including latency, bandwidth and infrastructure. Some of these third parties expressed confidence that these problems will be solved, and that cloud gaming will become a meaningful market, while the others characterised cloud gaming as already technically viable and an existing market.
- All bar one of the third parties (and all of those active in cloud gaming services) identified content, particularly AAA content, as an important element in a successful cloud gaming offering, and noted that Activision controls a significant catalogue of AAA content.
- Some third parties discussed Proton as a compatibility layer for Windows games to run on Linux-based operating systems, alternately expressing optimism regarding the use of Proton as an alternative and considering it sub-optimal due to legal and technical hurdles.
- Two third parties commented on Microsoft's combined portfolio of Windows OS, the Azure cloud platform, its console strength, and its multi-game subscription business and expressed concerns about the impacts on competition of adding Activision's content and studio development capacity to this portfolio.
- Two of the third parties did not express concerns about the Merger, while three contended that the Merger would have a negative impact on competition, including by affording Microsoft the ability and incentive to foreclose potential and existing rivals in the console buy-to-play, console multi-game subscription and cloud gaming spaces. One third party commented that it was too early to determine what the impact of the Merger would be.
There are some extra bits of info, but these would be the main points.
No wonder that cloud gaming was considered a relevant market if the majority of third parties interviewed believed so.
The majority of third parties viewed cloud gaming as a nascent market. They suggested that its success will be dependent upon the resolution of a number of technical problems including latency, bandwidth and infrastructure. Some of these third parties expressed confidence that these problems will be solved, and that cloud gaming will become a meaningful market, while the others characterised cloud gaming as already technically viable and an existing market.
It isn't very clear, but to me it reads to me that maybe 4 or 5 out of 6 felt that cloud gaming was early and in the developmental stages. Some felt it would eventually be sorted and will become a meaningful market in the future, while others felt it was already technically viable, but if the majority overall felt it is still early in development I wouldn't necessarily consider that currently relevant.
Don't we know that Google was also one of them? I thought they blamed the failure of Stadia on MS.
From the lawyer
——————
MS says that Sony's motion should be denied and provides 10 pages of arguments. MS says that:
- Sony has unleashed its executives and high-priced economists to petition the Commission, as well as regulators around the world, to block the transaction. MS mentions 4 redacted examples.
- Sony's campaign has worked because the Commission's theory of harm relies almost exclusively on the facially implausible claim that the acquisition is anticompetitive because Microsoft will withhold from Sony a single game (Call of Duty).
- Despite leading the charge to stop the transaction, Sony claims it should not be required to produce documents on the very topics it has put at issue.
- Sony should produce documents from Lin Tao and Hideaki Nishino because Tao is the key custodian with information about SIE's financial health and plans and Nishino is the head of SIE's hardware business, another topic of central importance.
- Sony relies on blanket assertions of privilege and the burden of reviewing McCurdy's files because he is a lawyer. But, according to his job posting, McCurdy is also responsible for SIE's public policy engagement.
- Sony has refused to provide a predecessor custodian for Christian Svensson, who manages SIE's relationship with Activision, even though Svensson has only been in his position since 2021. MS says that that relationship is of the upmost importance, and SIE has not supported its assertion that Svensson's manager would have the same documents as Svensson's predecessor.
- Regarding the requests for data about the performance of SIE's gaming business, Sony has not explained why pulling and producing data from its central files, without any need for responsiveness or privilege review, would be unduly burdensome.
- Requests 14(d) and 19 are about specific documents—valuations, board documents, and regulatory submissions—related to SIE's cloud-gaming acquisitions of Gaikai in 2012 and OnLive in 2015. MS says that providing targeted information about SIE's own cloud-gaming efforts is relevant to assessing the viability of that claim and is not unduly burdensome.
- Microsoft seeks performance reviews for SIE custodians. Microsoft is not seeking to embarrass SIE's leadership; it seeks to understand the metrics on which SIE's executives and business are evaluated.
- Request 35 seeks executed copies of content-licensing agreements between SIE and third- party gaming publishers. MS says that these contracts are relevant. Microsoft says that they are aware that PlayStation requires many third-party publishers to agree to exclusivity provisions, including preventing the publishers from putting their games on Xbox's multi-game subscription service. But that they do not fully understand the extent of SIE's arrangements or how they impact the industry's competitiveness.
- Microsoft requests that Sony produce documents that SIE submitted to these regulatory authorities in connection with this transaction. SIE has refused, agreeing only to produce submissions to the European Commission and United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority, based on claims of burden.
- Contrary to the allegation that Microsoft will make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, since announcing the deal, Microsoft has repeatedly offered to enter into an agreement to license Call of Duty to SIE—first for five years (this is new!) and then for ten, an unheard-of duration in the industry. SIE has refused. Microsoft seeks documents about these negotiations, including SIE's internal consideration of Microsoft's offers and why it has refused them.
- Request 14(f) seeks information about SIE's investment in virtual reality technology for its console, which SIE executives have highlighted as a strategic imperative and "a giant leap forward in the way we play games.
And done! A lot of drama potentially coming :s
——————
Sony wants more time for the FTC's subpoena (until March 1st).
The FTC seems to agree.
——————
MS says that Sony's motion should be denied and provides 10 pages of arguments. MS says that:
- Sony has unleashed its executives and high-priced economists to petition the Commission, as well as regulators around the world, to block the transaction. MS mentions 4 redacted examples.
- Sony's campaign has worked because the Commission's theory of harm relies almost exclusively on the facially implausible claim that the acquisition is anticompetitive because Microsoft will withhold from Sony a single game (Call of Duty).
- Despite leading the charge to stop the transaction, Sony claims it should not be required to produce documents on the very topics it has put at issue.
- Sony should produce documents from Lin Tao and Hideaki Nishino because Tao is the key custodian with information about SIE's financial health and plans and Nishino is the head of SIE's hardware business, another topic of central importance.
- Sony relies on blanket assertions of privilege and the burden of reviewing McCurdy's files because he is a lawyer. But, according to his job posting, McCurdy is also responsible for SIE's public policy engagement.
- Sony has refused to provide a predecessor custodian for Christian Svensson, who manages SIE's relationship with Activision, even though Svensson has only been in his position since 2021. MS says that that relationship is of the upmost importance, and SIE has not supported its assertion that Svensson's manager would have the same documents as Svensson's predecessor.
- Regarding the requests for data about the performance of SIE's gaming business, Sony has not explained why pulling and producing data from its central files, without any need for responsiveness or privilege review, would be unduly burdensome.
- Requests 14(d) and 19 are about specific documents—valuations, board documents, and regulatory submissions—related to SIE's cloud-gaming acquisitions of Gaikai in 2012 and OnLive in 2015. MS says that providing targeted information about SIE's own cloud-gaming efforts is relevant to assessing the viability of that claim and is not unduly burdensome.
- Microsoft seeks performance reviews for SIE custodians. Microsoft is not seeking to embarrass SIE's leadership; it seeks to understand the metrics on which SIE's executives and business are evaluated.
- Request 35 seeks executed copies of content-licensing agreements between SIE and third- party gaming publishers. MS says that these contracts are relevant. Microsoft says that they are aware that PlayStation requires many third-party publishers to agree to exclusivity provisions, including preventing the publishers from putting their games on Xbox's multi-game subscription service. But that they do not fully understand the extent of SIE's arrangements or how they impact the industry's competitiveness.
- Microsoft requests that Sony produce documents that SIE submitted to these regulatory authorities in connection with this transaction. SIE has refused, agreeing only to produce submissions to the European Commission and United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority, based on claims of burden.
- Contrary to the allegation that Microsoft will make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox, since announcing the deal, Microsoft has repeatedly offered to enter into an agreement to license Call of Duty to SIE—first for five years (this is new!) and then for ten, an unheard-of duration in the industry. SIE has refused. Microsoft seeks documents about these negotiations, including SIE's internal consideration of Microsoft's offers and why it has refused them.
- Request 14(f) seeks information about SIE's investment in virtual reality technology for its console, which SIE executives have highlighted as a strategic imperative and "a giant leap forward in the way we play games.
And done! A lot of drama potentially coming :s
——————
Sony wants more time for the FTC's subpoena (until March 1st).
The FTC seems to agree.
Sony and Microsoft's agreement on Call of Duty
New information suggests that the console rivals are closing in on a Call of Duty deal that would satisfy anti-trust regulators.
superjoost.substack.com
This means SONY knows it is coming to an end and Microsoft must have done something to scare SONY.
SONY has no idea who they are messing with. Microsoft has deep pockets and if they want something, it will do everything to get it.
Didn’t many of the big devs/publishers say they’re ok with it when Brazil asked them.
Sony Japan, Sony America, Sony Europe?
I follow him exclusively for the jokes
Sony Japan, Sony America, Sony Europe?
Sony has always been kinda scummy to me anyway. It's why I don't support them. I don't want them out of the business, they make good games and keep Microsoft somewhat honest. But I won't support them by buying their consoles or software. The fanboys are just as bad if not, worse. They're literally the most exhausting group of fanboys (gaming or otherwise)
Not going to lie, but looking at this is hard for my eyes, do I need to wear 3d glasses for this?
I don't understand why console warriors are so against these two coming to some kind of compromise. How could that not possibly end up good?
Sony know it's going to go through and want to make up and get a deal.
MS was never going to take COD away from them but Sony clearly don't want to have to hand over all that data MS requested.
MS was never going to take COD away from them but Sony clearly don't want to have to hand over all that data MS requested.
Yeah. Trying to determine whether Sony was just being a bitch to try and block the deal and now, since things are coming to a close, theyve had a change of heart? Or, what the hell is actually going on...
If you follow the breadcrumbs this all stems from a Tuesday article from Reuters, so no new info here.
id and Arkane were ZeniMax subsidiaries, so they're already 100% Xbox Game Studio companies. No risk of losing them.
- Top executives from Microsoft, Activision Blizzard and Sony, as well as representatives from Nvidia, Electronic Arts and Valve, are expected to appear at a closed-door hearing in Brussels on Tuesday 21st.
- Microsoft is calling up its president, Brad Smith, and the chief executive of its gaming division, Phil Spencer. From Activision, Bobby Kotick is also likely to appear.
- Jim Ryan, chief executive of Sony Interactive Entertainment, will also be in Brussels to underline Sony's position that the deal will harm competition.
- Further representatives from Google, Nvidia, Electronic Arts and Valve will also be present at the hearing.
- The European Games Developer Federation will be in attendance too.
- MLex understands that the Statement of Objections maintains the bulk of its concerns from November.
- Microsoft will face the commission's case team at the hearing, which is also attended by a broader audience of commission officials and representatives from the bloc's national competition watchdogs.
- Other rivals and customers could be there too.
Not looking like this will happen in the end.
- Microsoft is calling up its president, Brad Smith, and the chief executive of its gaming division, Phil Spencer. From Activision, Bobby Kotick is also likely to appear.
- Jim Ryan, chief executive of Sony Interactive Entertainment, will also be in Brussels to underline Sony's position that the deal will harm competition.
- Further representatives from Google, Nvidia, Electronic Arts and Valve will also be present at the hearing.
- The European Games Developer Federation will be in attendance too.
- MLex understands that the Statement of Objections maintains the bulk of its concerns from November.
- Microsoft will face the commission's case team at the hearing, which is also attended by a broader audience of commission officials and representatives from the bloc's national competition watchdogs.
- Other rivals and customers could be there too.
Not looking like this will happen in the end.