They’ll bring it back to the ftc once the two uk and Europe boards look over it and match what they off them, with the ftc later.
So, um, sloppy thirds?
Will be interesting to see if Sony will be equally scrutinized for their inevitable future studio/publisher purchases.
I will be glad when this is all over....then MS can get on with buying EA 
I will be glad when this is all over....then MS can get on with buying EA
Still waiting on that amazon announcement..
From the lawyer covering the topic…
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
The report from MLex about the pre-hearing has a few interesting bits of info that are new:
- Any potential remedy entered into with the EC and CMA will also be offered to the FTC: "The deal is undergoing review over in Europe and the UK and we are hoping that they will be resolved and if there are remedies that are appropriate we can come back to ... the FTC to talk about a resolution," said Beth Wilkinson (MS' lead counsel).
- James Weingarten, deputy chief trial counsel at the FTC, said that staff (he clarified that when he used the word "staff" he meant himself) is always open to a remedy or settlement proposal during or before litigation, although "There are no substantive conversations happening at this time."
- MS/ABK and the FTC agreed to an expedited discovery schedule (so they can start requesting and inspecting documents in a shortened time period).
- Beth Wilkinson told Chappell (the administrative judge) that if a resolution isn't reached with the FTC, the deal will go forward and close after a remedy is reached in all pending jurisdictions. But that the companies assume the FTC would go to federal court in that case.
- She also said that's why they wanted to front-load the discovery, just in case the FTC went to federal court because MS/ABK have a termination date of July 18, 2023. "We are preparing for all options", said Wilkinson.
MS sounds quite confident:
- They are still expecting to close the deal in the original termination date
- They sound positive about the review process in Europe and UK
- If they get the go ahead from the CMA and EC, and the FTC doesn't settle, they'll go forward and close the deal in the US (expecting the FTC to go to court)
Very interesting! Now let's see what the CMA brings to the table this month.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
The report from MLex about the pre-hearing has a few interesting bits of info that are new:
- Any potential remedy entered into with the EC and CMA will also be offered to the FTC: "The deal is undergoing review over in Europe and the UK and we are hoping that they will be resolved and if there are remedies that are appropriate we can come back to ... the FTC to talk about a resolution," said Beth Wilkinson (MS' lead counsel).
- James Weingarten, deputy chief trial counsel at the FTC, said that staff (he clarified that when he used the word "staff" he meant himself) is always open to a remedy or settlement proposal during or before litigation, although "There are no substantive conversations happening at this time."
- MS/ABK and the FTC agreed to an expedited discovery schedule (so they can start requesting and inspecting documents in a shortened time period).
- Beth Wilkinson told Chappell (the administrative judge) that if a resolution isn't reached with the FTC, the deal will go forward and close after a remedy is reached in all pending jurisdictions. But that the companies assume the FTC would go to federal court in that case.
- She also said that's why they wanted to front-load the discovery, just in case the FTC went to federal court because MS/ABK have a termination date of July 18, 2023. "We are preparing for all options", said Wilkinson.
MS sounds quite confident:
- They are still expecting to close the deal in the original termination date
- They sound positive about the review process in Europe and UK
- If they get the go ahead from the CMA and EC, and the FTC doesn't settle, they'll go forward and close the deal in the US (expecting the FTC to go to court)
Very interesting! Now let's see what the CMA brings to the table this month.
The CMA needs more time: final report delayed to 26 April 2023.
Provisional findings delayed to late January / early February 2023.
There are special reasons why the final report cannot be prepared and published within the reference period:
- The scope and complexity of the investigation
- The need to consider a large volume of evidence as well as main party and third party submissions
- The necessity to allow sufficient time to take full and proper account of comments that will be received in response to the Inquiry Group's provisional findings in due course and to reach a fully reasoned final decision in the statutory timeframe
Now the EC, CMA and even SAMR in China are very much aligned in timing for the final decision: April 11th for the EC / April 26th for the CMA / April-May 2023 for SAMR.
From the lawyer covering the topic…
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Well, this changes the timeline quite a bit.
Now the EC, CMA and even SAMR in China could be aligned in timing for the final decision.
New Zealand should be the next regulator to publish a decision, but I'm already expecting a fourth delay xD
NEXT IMPORTANT DATES
- January 18th 2023: original outside date (when the parties expected the merger to be done). If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $2,000,000,000; if they don’t, the outside date gets extended until April 18th 2023.
- Late January 2023: Statement of objections from the EC (unless MS can offer a convincing remedy package to avoid it).
- Late January /Early February 2023: provisional findings and remedies (if required) from the CMA.
- February 3rd 2023: decision from New Zealand.
- April 11th 2023: final decision from the EC (if MS didn’t close the deal sooner).
- April 18th 2023: second extension of the original outside date. If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $2,500,000,000; if they don’t, the outside date gets extended until July 18th 2023.
- April 26th 2023: final report and remedies (if required) from the CMA.
- April - May 2023: decision from the SAMR in China.
- July 18th 2023: The end of the second extension and final outside date in the merger agreement. If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $3,000,000,000; if they don’t, they’ll have to renegotiate the outside date with ABK.
- August 2nd 2023: beginning of the FTC in-house trial.
- Early 2024: decision from the FTC administrative law judge.
- Anything beyond that: unknown
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Well, this changes the timeline quite a bit.
Now the EC, CMA and even SAMR in China could be aligned in timing for the final decision.
New Zealand should be the next regulator to publish a decision, but I'm already expecting a fourth delay xD
NEXT IMPORTANT DATES
- January 18th 2023: original outside date (when the parties expected the merger to be done). If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $2,000,000,000; if they don’t, the outside date gets extended until April 18th 2023.
- Late January 2023: Statement of objections from the EC (unless MS can offer a convincing remedy package to avoid it).
- Late January /Early February 2023: provisional findings and remedies (if required) from the CMA.
- February 3rd 2023: decision from New Zealand.
- April 11th 2023: final decision from the EC (if MS didn’t close the deal sooner).
- April 18th 2023: second extension of the original outside date. If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $2,500,000,000; if they don’t, the outside date gets extended until July 18th 2023.
- April 26th 2023: final report and remedies (if required) from the CMA.
- April - May 2023: decision from the SAMR in China.
- July 18th 2023: The end of the second extension and final outside date in the merger agreement. If MS quits before that date they have to pay a termination fee of $3,000,000,000; if they don’t, they’ll have to renegotiate the outside date with ABK.
- August 2nd 2023: beginning of the FTC in-house trial.
- Early 2024: decision from the FTC administrative law judge.
- Anything beyond that: unknown
From the lawyer covering the topic…
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
The delay suggests a few things:
- This is not an easy block because the CMA already had the arguments (decision from Phase 1) and a big supporter (the FTC) to do that. Instead, they are delaying the whole process two months (not just 2-3 weeks). Therefore, if this ends up being blocked, I expect the arguments to be more nuanced than the ones from the FTC.
- At the same time, the delay suggests that some of the arguments from MS during Phase 2 have worked because the CMA already had a blueprint for a full prohibition with the decision from Phase 1, where almost every argument from MS was rejected.
- It could also suggest that they are thinking about an approval, with or without remedies. In that case, it makes sense to have more time because both outcomes are going to be divisive: 1) because they are accepting behavioural remedies after rejecting them systematically for years or 2) because they don't see the need for remedies although this is one of the biggest deals in history, could affect nascent markets and is coming from Big Tech.
In any case, I think the extra time is good news for MS.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
The delay suggests a few things:
- This is not an easy block because the CMA already had the arguments (decision from Phase 1) and a big supporter (the FTC) to do that. Instead, they are delaying the whole process two months (not just 2-3 weeks). Therefore, if this ends up being blocked, I expect the arguments to be more nuanced than the ones from the FTC.
- At the same time, the delay suggests that some of the arguments from MS during Phase 2 have worked because the CMA already had a blueprint for a full prohibition with the decision from Phase 1, where almost every argument from MS was rejected.
- It could also suggest that they are thinking about an approval, with or without remedies. In that case, it makes sense to have more time because both outcomes are going to be divisive: 1) because they are accepting behavioural remedies after rejecting them systematically for years or 2) because they don't see the need for remedies although this is one of the biggest deals in history, could affect nascent markets and is coming from Big Tech.
In any case, I think the extra time is good news for MS.
From the lawyer covering the topic…
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
The FTC finally uploaded the Administrative Law Judge's Order Setting Prehearing Conference from Monday.
After what happened the last time (with so many people connecting), I don’t know if the next one will include this: To the extent practicable, members of the press and public will be allowed to access the proceedings of the scheduling conference via a public call-in number.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
The FTC finally uploaded the Administrative Law Judge's Order Setting Prehearing Conference from Monday.
After what happened the last time (with so many people connecting), I don’t know if the next one will include this: To the extent practicable, members of the press and public will be allowed to access the proceedings of the scheduling conference via a public call-in number.
From the lawyer covering the topic…
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
There is a new report from MLex about the case against the FTC and constitutional issues:
- MS and ABK have deliberately, if discreetly, raised constitutional issues in the legal briefs submitted to the FTC to preserve constitutional arguments in the event of an appeal of any action by the agency against the companies' merger.
- There are multiple constitutional challenges to the FTC's judicial authority right now, and if one succeeds, MS and ABK want to be able to capitalize.
- The cases are: Axon Enterprise, Altria-JUUL, Meta-Within, Illumina-Grail and MS/ABK. The arguments are different in each case, but all of the challenges invoke fundamental legal issues.
- Beth Wilkinson, who is currently representing Microsoft, is also one of the Altria-JUUL lawyers.
- The arguments from MS and ABK are similar to the Axon case, the FTC's administrative procedure violates: 1) the separation of powers doctrine in Article II; 2) the assignment in Article III of legal powers to the judicial branch of the federal government and 3) the Constitution's equal-protection and due-process clauses.
- The Supreme Court is also currently considering a similar case to Axon‘s regarding the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC v. Cochran, one where a Supreme Court verdict would affect the FTC.
- MS and ABK could raise constitutional issues during preliminary injunction proceedings, if the FTC pursues that route to prevent the transaction from closing. But because the federal district judge in the Meta-Within case threw out constitution-based defenses, the utility of such claims is open to question.
- Lanny Davis, who represented Axon in its initial lawsuit against the FTC and its appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, says he sees a significant difference in the approaches of MS and Axon: Axon immediately filed a lawsuit in US District Court claiming the FTC's administrative court process was unconstitutional, while MS and ABK merely catalogued the constitutional issues at the bottom of their briefs opposing the FTC's decision.
As Beth Wilkinson said on Monday, it looks like they are preparing for all options.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
There is a new report from MLex about the case against the FTC and constitutional issues:
- MS and ABK have deliberately, if discreetly, raised constitutional issues in the legal briefs submitted to the FTC to preserve constitutional arguments in the event of an appeal of any action by the agency against the companies' merger.
- There are multiple constitutional challenges to the FTC's judicial authority right now, and if one succeeds, MS and ABK want to be able to capitalize.
- The cases are: Axon Enterprise, Altria-JUUL, Meta-Within, Illumina-Grail and MS/ABK. The arguments are different in each case, but all of the challenges invoke fundamental legal issues.
- Beth Wilkinson, who is currently representing Microsoft, is also one of the Altria-JUUL lawyers.
- The arguments from MS and ABK are similar to the Axon case, the FTC's administrative procedure violates: 1) the separation of powers doctrine in Article II; 2) the assignment in Article III of legal powers to the judicial branch of the federal government and 3) the Constitution's equal-protection and due-process clauses.
- The Supreme Court is also currently considering a similar case to Axon‘s regarding the Securities and Exchange Commission, the SEC v. Cochran, one where a Supreme Court verdict would affect the FTC.
- MS and ABK could raise constitutional issues during preliminary injunction proceedings, if the FTC pursues that route to prevent the transaction from closing. But because the federal district judge in the Meta-Within case threw out constitution-based defenses, the utility of such claims is open to question.
- Lanny Davis, who represented Axon in its initial lawsuit against the FTC and its appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, says he sees a significant difference in the approaches of MS and Axon: Axon immediately filed a lawsuit in US District Court claiming the FTC's administrative court process was unconstitutional, while MS and ABK merely catalogued the constitutional issues at the bottom of their briefs opposing the FTC's decision.
As Beth Wilkinson said on Monday, it looks like they are preparing for all options.
From the lawyer covering the topic…
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
There is no way that was a mistake.
And the amended answer was filed the same day of the pre-hearing. So, my guess would that they are doing it as a sign of good faith because they are restarting negotiations or seriously trying to.
——————
MS said on Monday that the deal was undergoing review over in Europe and the UK and that "We are hoping that they will be resolved and if there are remedies that are appropriate we can come back to the FTC to talk about a resolution".
The FTC responds that they are always open to any remedy or settlement proposal either in litigation or before litigation, although "There are no substantive conversations happening at this time".
The same day, MS and ABK, amend their responses to drop the unsconstitutional arguments (arguments that were there for a specific reason, the MLex report from today is proof enough).
And today the CMA delays the whole process two months.
I don’t know, but it feels like too many coincidences at the same time…
Microsoft’s Union Ally Pushes FTC for Activision Merger Deal
(Bloomberg) -- Microsoft Corp.’s newfound support for organized labor has given the company a powerful ally pushing the US Federal Trade Commission for a settlement to allow the software company’s $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard Inc. Most Read from BloombergUS Safety Agency to...
From the lawyer covering the topic…
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
A few updates:
- It looks like the hearing from the gamers' lawsuit could be live streamed via Youtube on March 23rd.
- The amended answer from ABK was finally uploaded. The same but without the unconstitutional arguments (although they have improved the redacted parts, too).
- I guess that this next week the decision from Chilecould be published.
- Although it's unlikely, this week Canada could surprise us because they update the list of completed merger reviews after the 10th calendar day of each month.
- In 10 days is the first anniversary of the announcement of the acquisition, so I guess that we can expect reports from Bloomberg, NYT, WSJ, Reuters and more with some new info there.
- New updates from MLex, DealReporter, Capital Forum, etc are to be expected in the next days/weeks.
- Beyond that, not expecting a lot of official action and documents until the end of the month (possible Statement of Objections from the EC, update from New Zealand if there is a new delay and provisional findings from the CMA (although these could arrive in mid February too).
Enjoy the week!
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
A few updates:
- It looks like the hearing from the gamers' lawsuit could be live streamed via Youtube on March 23rd.
- The amended answer from ABK was finally uploaded. The same but without the unconstitutional arguments (although they have improved the redacted parts, too).
- I guess that this next week the decision from Chilecould be published.
- Although it's unlikely, this week Canada could surprise us because they update the list of completed merger reviews after the 10th calendar day of each month.
- In 10 days is the first anniversary of the announcement of the acquisition, so I guess that we can expect reports from Bloomberg, NYT, WSJ, Reuters and more with some new info there.
- New updates from MLex, DealReporter, Capital Forum, etc are to be expected in the next days/weeks.
- Beyond that, not expecting a lot of official action and documents until the end of the month (possible Statement of Objections from the EC, update from New Zealand if there is a new delay and provisional findings from the CMA (although these could arrive in mid February too).
Enjoy the week!
From the lawyer covering the topic…
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
I see that the FTC added a summary to the case:
The Federal Trade Commission authorized an administrative complaint against the proposed merger between Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard, Inc., a video game developer that creates and publishes games such as Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch. Microsoft sells the Xbox gaming console and also offers a video game subscription service called Xbox Game Pass, as well as a cloud-based video game streaming service. The agency alleges that the deal would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription and cloud-gaming business. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Aug. 2, 2023 at 10 a.m. ET before an Administrative Law Judge at the FTC's headquarters at 600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Room 532.
And we finally have the scheduling order for the administrative complaint:
- January 17, 2023: the FTC will provide the preliminary witness list (not including experts)
- January 24, 2023: MS/ABK will provide the preliminary witness list (not including experts)
- February 24, 2023: the FTC will provide the expert witness list
- March 3, 2023: deadline for issuing document requests, interrogatories and subpoenas
- March 10, 2023: MS/ABK will provide expert witness list
And much more key dates from now on until August 2nd 2023.
This is the “result” of the pre hearing from last week.
Looking forward to those witness lists
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
I see that the FTC added a summary to the case:
The Federal Trade Commission authorized an administrative complaint against the proposed merger between Microsoft Corp. and Activision Blizzard, Inc., a video game developer that creates and publishes games such as Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch. Microsoft sells the Xbox gaming console and also offers a video game subscription service called Xbox Game Pass, as well as a cloud-based video game streaming service. The agency alleges that the deal would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors to its Xbox gaming consoles and its rapidly growing subscription and cloud-gaming business. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Aug. 2, 2023 at 10 a.m. ET before an Administrative Law Judge at the FTC's headquarters at 600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Room 532.
And we finally have the scheduling order for the administrative complaint:
- January 17, 2023: the FTC will provide the preliminary witness list (not including experts)
- January 24, 2023: MS/ABK will provide the preliminary witness list (not including experts)
- February 24, 2023: the FTC will provide the expert witness list
- March 3, 2023: deadline for issuing document requests, interrogatories and subpoenas
- March 10, 2023: MS/ABK will provide expert witness list
And much more key dates from now on until August 2nd 2023.
This is the “result” of the pre hearing from last week.
Looking forward to those witness lists
ABK has hired Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a law firm whose motto is "When the stakes are high and conventional solutions are not enough" They have enlisted their Policy Director, Nadeam A. Elshami, chief of staff to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
thehill.com
Activision Blizzard hired Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck to lobby on issues related to labor and employment policy. The video game company, which is seeking to win regulatory approval to be purchased by Microsoft, is running ads in the nation's capital noting that its workers' union backs the merger. The firm enlisted Brownstein's Nadeam Elshami, who served as chief of staff to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
They have enlisted their Policy Director, Nadeam A. Elshami, chief of staff to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Bottom Line — Activision Blizzard lobbies up amid antitrust fight
ANTITRUST Activision Blizzard hired Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck to lobby on issues related to labor and employment policy. The video game company, which is seeking to win regulatory approval to…
thehill.com
Activision Blizzard hired Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck to lobby on issues related to labor and employment policy. The video game company, which is seeking to win regulatory approval to be purchased by Microsoft, is running ads in the nation's capital noting that its workers' union backs the merger. The firm enlisted Brownstein's Nadeam Elshami, who served as chief of staff to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
From the lawyer covering the topic…
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
We have the decision from Chile:
- Short version (5 pages)
- Long version (38 pages)
Both in Spanish.
I just skipped the long version and it looks very interesting and with new info. A few selected paragraphs:
The information gathered in the investigation makes it possible to affirm that the income generated by the Sony console from ABK are relevant, and that said relevance would discourage a blocking strategy by the parties. As a first background we can consider that Playstation is the console that generates the highest income for ABK, doubling in 2021 the income generated in its favor by Xbox consoles. The results are similar when looking at revenue for the Call of Duty franchise.
The importance of Sony is even more evident when the most successful Call of Duty title in the year 2020, Modern Warfare, is analyzed. For this title, Playstation represented 50-60% of revenue. The rest of the revenue is divided between PC with 20-30% and Xbox with 10-20%. This demonstrates the importance of the Sony console in ABK's products and how relevant would be for the company the loss of income by blocking from PlayStation the games developed by ABK.
The incentives to deploy an ABK game blocking strategy are also affected by the significant investments made during the course of the game's development, in adjustments aimed at meeting the technical specifications of the consoles. Due to the above, for this regulator it is evident that a possible blockade of Playstation would imply the loss of all the investments made years in advance to adapt the next releases of titles on Playstation.
[…]
But even such a partial lockdown scenario might be unlikely, if a low number of players are willing to migrate from PlayStation to Xbox as a result of the lockdown. In this sense, the results of the Survey – implemented by this Division to Chilean video game consumers – shed light on the willingness of players to change their device, given the supposed unavailability of Call of Duty on Sony consoles. The data from the Survey shows that 61% of console players, faced with a scenario of unavailability of Call of Duty, would opt for a different video game, and only 20% would opt to switch to another device.
[…]
In light of the foregoing, this Division considers that deploying a potential strategy of partial or total blocking of PlayStation would imply, in a certain way, contravening the trend towards which the market is projected, and would generate deviations towards competing video games that they do include this modality (crossplay). The importance of crossplay for Call of Duty players is confirmed, for local consumers, in the results of the Survey, which indicates that 72% of Call of Duty players on consoles consider this modality as a relevant factor for choosing your primary device.
[…]
If we analyze the conduct that the merged entity could display with respect to Sony, we have, first of all, that Call of Duty is not the franchise that generates the highest income for it. Illustrative of this is that, by 2021, Call of Duty represented [0%-10%] of the total revenue received by Sony, behind FIFA and Fortnite. Therefore, the removal of Call of Duty from the portfolio of titles available on its platform, while it could have some impact on the company's revenue, would not deprive Sony of its main source of income.
[…]
The damage at the profit level for console providers, such as Sony, is even more limited if one considers that, at least in the Chilean market, the vast majority of Call of Duty players, faced with indefinite unavailability of said franchise, would not change platforms and would only choose to play another video game.
Similarly, when asked: "Based on your experience as a video game player, rate the following contents from essential to highly dispensable", 65% considered the title Grand Theft Auto essential or not dispensable, and 62 % expressed such opinion regarding Call of Duty. It should be noted that these results are even more telling, considering that the respondent base was made up of Call of Duty players and not necessarily Grand Theft Auto players. Thus, the importance of Gran Theft Auto could be underestimated in view of those who make up the Survey sample.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
We have the decision from Chile:
- Short version (5 pages)
- Long version (38 pages)
Both in Spanish.
I just skipped the long version and it looks very interesting and with new info. A few selected paragraphs:
The information gathered in the investigation makes it possible to affirm that the income generated by the Sony console from ABK are relevant, and that said relevance would discourage a blocking strategy by the parties. As a first background we can consider that Playstation is the console that generates the highest income for ABK, doubling in 2021 the income generated in its favor by Xbox consoles. The results are similar when looking at revenue for the Call of Duty franchise.
The importance of Sony is even more evident when the most successful Call of Duty title in the year 2020, Modern Warfare, is analyzed. For this title, Playstation represented 50-60% of revenue. The rest of the revenue is divided between PC with 20-30% and Xbox with 10-20%. This demonstrates the importance of the Sony console in ABK's products and how relevant would be for the company the loss of income by blocking from PlayStation the games developed by ABK.
The incentives to deploy an ABK game blocking strategy are also affected by the significant investments made during the course of the game's development, in adjustments aimed at meeting the technical specifications of the consoles. Due to the above, for this regulator it is evident that a possible blockade of Playstation would imply the loss of all the investments made years in advance to adapt the next releases of titles on Playstation.
[…]
But even such a partial lockdown scenario might be unlikely, if a low number of players are willing to migrate from PlayStation to Xbox as a result of the lockdown. In this sense, the results of the Survey – implemented by this Division to Chilean video game consumers – shed light on the willingness of players to change their device, given the supposed unavailability of Call of Duty on Sony consoles. The data from the Survey shows that 61% of console players, faced with a scenario of unavailability of Call of Duty, would opt for a different video game, and only 20% would opt to switch to another device.
[…]
In light of the foregoing, this Division considers that deploying a potential strategy of partial or total blocking of PlayStation would imply, in a certain way, contravening the trend towards which the market is projected, and would generate deviations towards competing video games that they do include this modality (crossplay). The importance of crossplay for Call of Duty players is confirmed, for local consumers, in the results of the Survey, which indicates that 72% of Call of Duty players on consoles consider this modality as a relevant factor for choosing your primary device.
[…]
If we analyze the conduct that the merged entity could display with respect to Sony, we have, first of all, that Call of Duty is not the franchise that generates the highest income for it. Illustrative of this is that, by 2021, Call of Duty represented [0%-10%] of the total revenue received by Sony, behind FIFA and Fortnite. Therefore, the removal of Call of Duty from the portfolio of titles available on its platform, while it could have some impact on the company's revenue, would not deprive Sony of its main source of income.
[…]
The damage at the profit level for console providers, such as Sony, is even more limited if one considers that, at least in the Chilean market, the vast majority of Call of Duty players, faced with indefinite unavailability of said franchise, would not change platforms and would only choose to play another video game.
Similarly, when asked: "Based on your experience as a video game player, rate the following contents from essential to highly dispensable", 65% considered the title Grand Theft Auto essential or not dispensable, and 62 % expressed such opinion regarding Call of Duty. It should be noted that these results are even more telling, considering that the respondent base was made up of Call of Duty players and not necessarily Grand Theft Auto players. Thus, the importance of Gran Theft Auto could be underestimated in view of those who make up the Survey sample.