Microsoft defend Activision-Blizzard buyout by saying the company don’t make any “must have” games

[Phantom Thief]

“Specifically, with respect to Activision Blizzard video games, there is nothing unique about the video games developed and published by Activision Blizzard that is a ‘must have’ for rival PC and console video game distributors that could give rise to a foreclosure concern,” read Microsoft’s response to the New Zealand Commerce Commission, published in a report from June. That means that Microsoft don’t consider their future ownership of Activision Blizzard’s franchises such as Call Of Duty to cause issues that would prevent their rivals – among whom they identify Valve in the PC space – from competing against them.

Source

I mean...

Okay, jokes apart, I think this is a pretty misleading argument. Even without looking at the massive elephant in the room that is Call of Duty, Activision still does hold several valuable IP that are especially relevant from an antitrust perspective, from Overwatch/World of Warcraft to Candy Crush. Among the brands more core players may care about, Diablo is massive. Not sure this is the argument I would necessarily go with.

 

[ILikeFeet]

they don't even need to make crazy-ass arguments. hell, just looking at the brazilian Q&A, others are unbothered for the most part

Sony: "bUt ThE cOmpEtiTiOn!"
the competition: "eh we aight"

 

[Blue Monty]

I don’t like what Xbox is doing with the industry when it comes to acquisitions but to be fair they are right, while CoD is with GTA the biggest 3rd party IP by far it isn’t a must-have IP for a platform success as both Steam and Switch show. The lack of CoD if it happens could be a big hit for PlayStation but at the same time it isn’t necessary for PS success or makes it too hard for PS to succeed .

pd: Didnt mention non-CoD IPs because almost all ABK revenue comes from Candy Crash,Warcraft and CoD, only the latter is on consoles right now.

 

[Suis La Lune]

What does 'must-have' mean? like in the sense that it's obligatory for a platform to have these games in order to succeed in the market?

 

[Bodokoh]

Valve and Nintendo are doing great without yearly COD games on their platform.

 

[enpleinjour]

Company spends $70B for no must have games. News at 12. These arbitrary definitions are meaningless without referring to actual market data.

Of course MS is going to try its hardest to downplay the size of ATVI's IPs.

they don't even need to make crazy-ass arguments. hell, just looking at the brazilian Q&A, others are unbothered for the most part

Sony: "bUt ThE cOmpEtiTiOn!"
the competition: "eh we aight"

Not true at all.

Nuuvem is quite negative from an anti-trust perspective on the merger and WB has had a lot of the major questions, entire sections on distribution platforms and hardware platform effects redacted. Ubisoft agrees that there is no irreplaceable game, and everything competes but their answers on negative and positive effects has been redacted. Riot also agrees that there is plenty of competition but also notes that they trust MS to keep its multiplatform public pledge with respect to competition effects.

Sony is the only one offering a more data driven response in their public responses and very negative all around.

Furthermore the omission (so far?) of Nintendo, EA and T2 is big.

 

[adriandlte]

There are platforms without COD that are succesful, that's what they are saying as I understand.

 

[awng782]

I interpreted this as Microsoft saying that there is nothing unique about Call of Duty since there are other multiplayer (first person) shooters on the market. It's not like they are acquiring some kind of proprietary technology that is required to develop multiplayer first person shooter video games.

I don't think Microsoft is denying the commercial success of the franchise.

 

[Welfare]

The argument is if Xbox owns Call of Duty that Sony, Valve, and others would still be able to compete in the market.

And Microsoft is 100% right. Steam and Nintendo haven't had COD in years and they are booming.

Sony at worst is losing the marketing rights for COD. That alone will not prevent PlayStation from competing with Xbox, just more difficult. That isn't even a negative considering Sony's last console outsold Xbox's by more than double. PS+ has near 50M subs, close to double Game Pass. This deal going through isn't the end of PlayStation.