I'm afraid you WILL have to click on the link. Apologies for any inconvenience.
I'm saying that if you click on the Twitter link there is a lot more detail.
Microsoft didn't mislead EU over ZeniMax deal, watchdog says in response to US concerns
Microsoft didn't make any "commitments" to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media, the European Commission has said.
US enforcers yesterday suggested that the US tech giant had misled the regulator in 2021 and cited that as a reason to challenge its proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
"The commission cleared the Microsoft/ZeniMax transaction unconditionally as it concluded that the transaction would not raise competition concerns," the EU watchdog said in an emailed statement.
The absence of competition concerns "did not rely on any statements made by Microsoft about the future distribution strategy concerning ZeniMax's games," said the commission, which itself has opened an in-depth probe into the Activision Blizzard deal and appears keen to clarify what happened in the previous acquisition.
The EU agency found that even if Microsoft were to restrict access to ZeniMax titles, it wouldn't have a significant impact on competition because rivals wouldn't be denied access to an "essential input," and other consoles would still have a "large array" of attractive content.
Microsoft didn't make any "commitments" to EU regulators not to release Xbox-exclusive content following its takeover of ZeniMax Media, the European Commission has said.
US enforcers yesterday suggested that the US tech giant had misled the regulator in 2021 and cited that as a reason to challenge its proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
"The commission cleared the Microsoft/ZeniMax transaction unconditionally as it concluded that the transaction would not raise competition concerns," the EU watchdog said in an emailed statement.
The absence of competition concerns "did not rely on any statements made by Microsoft about the future distribution strategy concerning ZeniMax's games," said the commission, which itself has opened an in-depth probe into the Activision Blizzard deal and appears keen to clarify what happened in the previous acquisition.
The EU agency found that even if Microsoft were to restrict access to ZeniMax titles, it wouldn't have a significant impact on competition because rivals wouldn't be denied access to an "essential input," and other consoles would still have a "large array" of attractive content.
indefinitely borrowed from elsewhere, below…
————————————————————————————————————————————
This is from the Zenimax deal:
"Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles."
————————————————————————————————————————————
This is from the Zenimax deal:
- (107) The Notifying Party submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue making
ZeniMax games available for rival consoles (and their related storefronts).105
(10
The Notifying Party explains that the profitability of a strategy to make ZeniMax
games exclusive to the Xbox console would depend on a trade-off between: (i) the
value of attracting new players to the Xbox ecosystem; and (ii) the lost income from
the sale of ZeniMax games for rival consoles (through the related storefronts). In this
regard, the Notifying Party forecasts that a significant share of ZeniMax games sales
will occur on rival consoles over the life cycle of the newly released console
generation.
106 Based on such a trade-off, the Notifying Party submits that a
hypothetical console exclusivity strategy would be profitable only if it led to an
increase in the number of Xbox users [forecast million] over the next five years,
corresponding to an increase in Xbox shipments [forecast percentage] above the
forecast level.
107
(109) In the Notifying Party's view, it is implausible that Microsoft would achieve such
results. Firstly, the Notifying Party considers that such a strategy is likely to be
successful if service differentiation is weak and the content at issue is extremely valuable.
108 However, rival consoles are significantly differentiated, and have
accumulated brand loyalty.
https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases1/202124/m10001_438_3.pdf
"Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles."
Why the f*** would they buy Activision if they couldn’t have any exclusives out of the deal?
European Commission argues FTC's Microsoft lawsuit is unjustified
The European Commission is looking into Microsoft's merger with Activision Blizzard, but doesn't think the FTC's lawsuit has any real substance.
The FTC claimed Microsoft misled the EU, it appears the FTC was wrong.
In its recent filing against Microsoft the FTC claimed that the company misled EU regulators over its earlier acquisition of ZeniMax. Now the EU is telling the publication MLex that the FTC’s complaint is wrong. The EU apparently never asked Microsoft to guarantee ZeniMax games be available on...
www.theverge.com
Microsoft Didn't Lie to the EU on ZeniMax Deal Like the FTC Said, According to Sources
A new report says that Microsoft did not lie about the future exclusivity of ZeniMax games to the EU like the FTC had suggested yesterday.
wccftech.com
Indefinitely borrowed from else where, below…
————————————————————————————————————————————
Basically: FTC isn't technically lying. EC isn't lying. And neither one is accusing MS of lying - technically. EC is clear, in a technical way, that MS isn't lying. FTC knows that MS isn't lying, but they want you to believe that they are lying or are at least deeply untrustworthy. So they misdirect readers from the full context of MS's statements so they can rhetorically strongly imply that MS cannot be trusted because they break promises. They don't ACTUALLY accuse MS of this (and MS has been lying if any of this were actually true), but it's not true and MS hasn't been lying. In fact, MS has been doing exactly what they actually told the EU they would do - keep Zenimax games en masse available to buy on PlayStation and then take future games on a case by case basis. No games have left PSN. Check. Some games are exclusive. Check. Some games came to PlayStation. Check. (Not just Deathloop and Ghostwire, either. Quake Remaster was never promised or revealed, but still came to PS. It would be trivial to drop a platform - even a finished one.)
So, MS isn't untrustworthy, at least not from this incident. And yet it gets two full paragraphs of writeup to setup untrustworthy MS as incorrigible and likely to strike again with ABK. And why don't we accept the proffered 10 year contracts that would lock MS in (with whatever manner of horrible contract break clause that MS will sign) and directly address the concerns we have?? Well, because MS is untrustworthy and no deals with them can be trusted. They'reliars, you see (we didn't technically say this, so we're not liars either teehee)!!
And so our ONLY OPTION is to sue!! (Oh were we supposed to explain what the harm actually is if this happens? Um. Yea. MS will do all the bad things on the list of things that are bad! [literally, FTC wrote 1 sentence and repeated the list from their statute.] And that's it. They spent absolutely NO EFFORT on showing if this would actually cause any problems.
——— or long form below———
It is unfortunate that the media is wildly misinterpreting this lol. The clarification caused more confusion. Most of the people in here are not accusing the FTC of lying, though. We know they're not. But they're ALSO not accusing MS of lying either. Instead, they phrased their document in a very specific way that conveniently left out important context that would explain that MS was not actually saying what the FTC WANTS US TO THINK they said. FTC wants us to think that MS "assured" the EU that there was no reason for future Zenimax games to be exclusive. We know this isn't true in the sense that MS made no assurances at all - this is what EU wanted to be sure to make clear. But we ALSO know that MS specifically said that future Zenimax games will be on a case-by-case basis, from the documents that MS has shown.
What Totillo and MLex don't ask is whether MS gave EC any indication that future games might not be exclusive. The answer, according to MS, is yes. If the EU said no, then MS would be lying TWICE - both back in the Zenimax case AND yesterday in the response to all this. Considering that the EU has chosen NOT to call out MS for lying and instead made clear something else that could only possibly harm FTC's case (however minimally anyone may think that is), I'm going to suggest that they don't think MS lied. In fact, MS has done exactly what they told the EC they would do - even though they weren't actually promises. Ie: EC knew that they planned to make SOME games multiplat (like Quake, which wasn't known or promised to PS) and SOME games exclusive.
And yet.... the FTC writes this:
They don't technically accuse MS of lying. But they do use some neat rhetorical trickery to implicitly suggest that MS lied to the EU and is now lying to the FTC here again. Or maybe just maliciously misled? They definitely ascribe intent to whatever they're not technically accusing MS of doing. And therefore, this then forms the basis (the one and only support) of the argument that MS can't be trusted to keep COD on PlayStation. And in an unspoken way, it is also the basis for arguing why MS's commitments to Sony, Nintendo, Steam, the CWA, consumers, and regulators themselves are simply untrustworthy and not worth considering. Any potential remedies go completely unmentioned whatsoever in this document. Some minor stretches follow, but essentially this leads then directly into the final section where they describe the harm that MS would cause to the industry with such ignomious actions!
Except.. no they don't, they spend one sentence on it and just repeat the prompt. "And in conclusion, MS will cause the bad things in the list that we all know is bad." Untrustworthy MS is at the heart of their argument, because it is the backdrop for them rejecting the concessions that would DIRECTLY ADDRESS their central concerns in this case [foreclosure, labor, etc], and instead reach for the block.
————————————————————————————————————————————
Basically: FTC isn't technically lying. EC isn't lying. And neither one is accusing MS of lying - technically. EC is clear, in a technical way, that MS isn't lying. FTC knows that MS isn't lying, but they want you to believe that they are lying or are at least deeply untrustworthy. So they misdirect readers from the full context of MS's statements so they can rhetorically strongly imply that MS cannot be trusted because they break promises. They don't ACTUALLY accuse MS of this (and MS has been lying if any of this were actually true), but it's not true and MS hasn't been lying. In fact, MS has been doing exactly what they actually told the EU they would do - keep Zenimax games en masse available to buy on PlayStation and then take future games on a case by case basis. No games have left PSN. Check. Some games are exclusive. Check. Some games came to PlayStation. Check. (Not just Deathloop and Ghostwire, either. Quake Remaster was never promised or revealed, but still came to PS. It would be trivial to drop a platform - even a finished one.)
So, MS isn't untrustworthy, at least not from this incident. And yet it gets two full paragraphs of writeup to setup untrustworthy MS as incorrigible and likely to strike again with ABK. And why don't we accept the proffered 10 year contracts that would lock MS in (with whatever manner of horrible contract break clause that MS will sign) and directly address the concerns we have?? Well, because MS is untrustworthy and no deals with them can be trusted. They're
And so our ONLY OPTION is to sue!! (Oh were we supposed to explain what the harm actually is if this happens? Um. Yea. MS will do all the bad things on the list of things that are bad! [literally, FTC wrote 1 sentence and repeated the list from their statute.] And that's it. They spent absolutely NO EFFORT on showing if this would actually cause any problems.
——— or long form below———
It is unfortunate that the media is wildly misinterpreting this lol. The clarification caused more confusion. Most of the people in here are not accusing the FTC of lying, though. We know they're not. But they're ALSO not accusing MS of lying either. Instead, they phrased their document in a very specific way that conveniently left out important context that would explain that MS was not actually saying what the FTC WANTS US TO THINK they said. FTC wants us to think that MS "assured" the EU that there was no reason for future Zenimax games to be exclusive. We know this isn't true in the sense that MS made no assurances at all - this is what EU wanted to be sure to make clear. But we ALSO know that MS specifically said that future Zenimax games will be on a case-by-case basis, from the documents that MS has shown.
What Totillo and MLex don't ask is whether MS gave EC any indication that future games might not be exclusive. The answer, according to MS, is yes. If the EU said no, then MS would be lying TWICE - both back in the Zenimax case AND yesterday in the response to all this. Considering that the EU has chosen NOT to call out MS for lying and instead made clear something else that could only possibly harm FTC's case (however minimally anyone may think that is), I'm going to suggest that they don't think MS lied. In fact, MS has done exactly what they told the EC they would do - even though they weren't actually promises. Ie: EC knew that they planned to make SOME games multiplat (like Quake, which wasn't known or promised to PS) and SOME games exclusive.
And yet.... the FTC writes this:
They don't technically accuse MS of lying. But they do use some neat rhetorical trickery to implicitly suggest that MS lied to the EU and is now lying to the FTC here again. Or maybe just maliciously misled? They definitely ascribe intent to whatever they're not technically accusing MS of doing. And therefore, this then forms the basis (the one and only support) of the argument that MS can't be trusted to keep COD on PlayStation. And in an unspoken way, it is also the basis for arguing why MS's commitments to Sony, Nintendo, Steam, the CWA, consumers, and regulators themselves are simply untrustworthy and not worth considering. Any potential remedies go completely unmentioned whatsoever in this document. Some minor stretches follow, but essentially this leads then directly into the final section where they describe the harm that MS would cause to the industry with such ignomious actions!
Except.. no they don't, they spend one sentence on it and just repeat the prompt. "And in conclusion, MS will cause the bad things in the list that we all know is bad." Untrustworthy MS is at the heart of their argument, because it is the backdrop for them rejecting the concessions that would DIRECTLY ADDRESS their central concerns in this case [foreclosure, labor, etc], and instead reach for the block.
Indefinitely borrowed from elsewhere, below
————————————————————————————————————————————
- Early next week, Microsoft and Activision executives + lawyers will appear before the CMA for a hearing. Phil Spencer and Rima Alaily, the company's deputy general counsel, are expected to attend.
- The next formal step in the EU process is due to come in late January, when the EC sets out any formal objections to the deal (although there could be delays and they expect MS to accelerate as much as possible in Europe).
- In Phase 2, the CMA appears to be less interested in earlier concerns about Microsoft leveraging its wider software and cloud services to stifle competition in gaming.
————————————————————————————————————————————
- Early next week, Microsoft and Activision executives + lawyers will appear before the CMA for a hearing. Phil Spencer and Rima Alaily, the company's deputy general counsel, are expected to attend.
- The next formal step in the EU process is due to come in late January, when the EC sets out any formal objections to the deal (although there could be delays and they expect MS to accelerate as much as possible in Europe).
- In Phase 2, the CMA appears to be less interested in earlier concerns about Microsoft leveraging its wider software and cloud services to stifle competition in gaming.
That's the point of not letting them do it, that's what these regulatory agencies are for, to stop things like mega corporations from just buying up industries. Buying up a developer that doesn't own any big multiplatform IP here and there is no big deal but this would be the second major publisher MS has picked up in a short time, after this what's to stop them from going after take two or EA? when does it stop?
They have plenty of studios now as it is, they've had over 20 years to figure out a way to bring more customers to their platform and they haven't cracked that code. That's a problem they need to fix internally, they shouldn't just be allowed to buy up a bunch of existing IP that are already established as multiplatform and be able to take it away to hurt their competition.
Last edited:
If it’s down to the CMA I think they’d rather pull out of the UK than cancel the deal.
And UK gamers would just import but then the CMA would be dumb to not back down without some simple concessions.
Exactly, it beats the whole purpose of buying the entire damn company to have leverage. It is going through no matter what.
Indefinitely borrowed, from elsewhere, below…
————————————————————————————————————————————
Some highlights and a few comments from the administrative complaint from the FTC:
- First relevant market: high-performance video game consoles, only Sony and MS are competitors there.
- The FTC differentiates between general purpose PCs and high-performance gaming PCs, although both can be used to play games.
- ABK is one of the few independent companies capable of developing "standout video games" for those consoles.
- The other two relevant markets are multi-game content library subscription services and cloud gaming.
- Total gaming revenues for MS in FY2022 were over $16 billion (Is this new?).
- "Nintendo's most recent console—the Nintendo Switch—is not a ninth-generation gaming console". The FTC put an end to the debate :s xD
- The FTC says that there are only 4 AAA independent games publishers: Activision, Electronic Arts, Take-Two, and Ubisoft (Japanese publishers are fair game, then?)
- Epic would be one of the few other studios capable of releasing AAA games, something that industry participants refer to as the "Big 4 + Epic." (Is that true? I've never heard that).
- AAA games increase adoption and engagement, giving a console or subscription service greater leverage in attracting additional content from publishers and developers (It sounds like the video game industry is all about AAA games, nothing else).
- "Nintendo pursues a different strategy of integrating its lower performance, portable hardware with its own distinctive first-party games to appeal to player nostalgia for Nintendo's unique gaming experience over high resolution, life-like graphics, and performance speed". (Nostalgic children?)
- Although the FTC talks about high performance PCs for gaming, later they say that gaming PCs and mobile devices are not commercially reasonable alternatives to High-Performance Consoles.
- Microsoft is already the market leader of multi-game content library subscription services in the US (although we don't know exactly why or how: in fact, some tiers of PS+ are initially mentioned as comparable to Gamepass but then there is not mention of them in the section about subscription services).
- Buy-to-play games are not commercially reasonable alternatives to subscription services. Therefore, they are different markets.
- Xbox Live Gold, PlayStation Plus Essential or Apple Arcade aren't alternatives to subscription services, either.
————————————————————————————————————————————
Some highlights and a few comments from the administrative complaint from the FTC:
- First relevant market: high-performance video game consoles, only Sony and MS are competitors there.
- The FTC differentiates between general purpose PCs and high-performance gaming PCs, although both can be used to play games.
- ABK is one of the few independent companies capable of developing "standout video games" for those consoles.
- The other two relevant markets are multi-game content library subscription services and cloud gaming.
- Total gaming revenues for MS in FY2022 were over $16 billion (Is this new?).
- "Nintendo's most recent console—the Nintendo Switch—is not a ninth-generation gaming console". The FTC put an end to the debate :s xD
- The FTC says that there are only 4 AAA independent games publishers: Activision, Electronic Arts, Take-Two, and Ubisoft (Japanese publishers are fair game, then?)
- Epic would be one of the few other studios capable of releasing AAA games, something that industry participants refer to as the "Big 4 + Epic." (Is that true? I've never heard that).
- AAA games increase adoption and engagement, giving a console or subscription service greater leverage in attracting additional content from publishers and developers (It sounds like the video game industry is all about AAA games, nothing else).
- "Nintendo pursues a different strategy of integrating its lower performance, portable hardware with its own distinctive first-party games to appeal to player nostalgia for Nintendo's unique gaming experience over high resolution, life-like graphics, and performance speed". (Nostalgic children?)
- Although the FTC talks about high performance PCs for gaming, later they say that gaming PCs and mobile devices are not commercially reasonable alternatives to High-Performance Consoles.
- Microsoft is already the market leader of multi-game content library subscription services in the US (although we don't know exactly why or how: in fact, some tiers of PS+ are initially mentioned as comparable to Gamepass but then there is not mention of them in the section about subscription services).
- Buy-to-play games are not commercially reasonable alternatives to subscription services. Therefore, they are different markets.
- Xbox Live Gold, PlayStation Plus Essential or Apple Arcade aren't alternatives to subscription services, either.
The FTC has no business trying to stop video game company mergers
It’s one of the most competitive industries in the world, and there’s no good reason to stop Microsoft from acquiring Activision Blizzard.
reason.com