Whoa: UK’s CMA Blocks Microsoft’s Acquisition Of Activision Blizzard
from the it's-not-over-yet dept
We’ve been following the entire saga of Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard for some time now. The whole thing has been decidedly messy, for various reasons. For starters, there are three main regulatory bodies that most of us have been waiting to hear from: the UK’s CMA, the USA’s FTC, and the EU. And those bodies have been in different places and on different timelines to date. The EU gave its tacit approval to the deal, while the FTC signaled it wanted more information before making any decisions, while the CMA has voiced some very serious concerns about approving the deal. If you’re an American reading this, you may be conditioned to roll your eyes at all of this talk of regulation. The FTC in this country has behaved largely as though it lacks fangs when it comes to antitrust activity.
Which is why it may come as a surprise that the UK’s CMA has issued its final report in favor of blocking the purchase entirely.
The final report cites Microsoft’s “strong position” in the cloud-gaming sector, where the company has an estimated 60 to 70 percent market share that makes it “already much stronger than its rivals.” After purchasing Activision, the CMA says Microsoft “would find it commercially beneficial to make Activision’s titles exclusive to its own cloud gaming service.”
As to all of those largely cloud-gaming based deals Microsoft inked to keep AAA titles like Call of Duty on those platforms and the company’s argument that this showed its commitment to robust competition and non-exclusivity in the market, well:
Specifically, the CMA said Microsoft’s proposed remedy doesn’t sufficiently cover “multigame subscription services,” or providers working with “games on PC operating systems other than Windows.” Microsoft’s proposed standardized cloud-gaming licensing terms would also prevent those deals from being “determined by the dynamism and creativity of competition in the market” the CMA said.
“Accepting Microsoft’s remedy would inevitably require some degree of regulatory oversight by the CMA,” the regulator said in a press release. “By contrast, preventing the merger would effectively allow market forces to continue to operate and shape the development of cloud gaming without this regulatory intervention.”
What a breath of fresh air. Whether you agree with the CMA’s assessment or not, it’s quite nice to see a regulatory body show its teeth a bit, particularly when the focus is squarely on which outcome actually benefits the market and consumers more.
Now, all of this comes with the stipulation that Microsoft can, and will, appeal this decision. And, as you might expect, the promise to appeal comes along with Activision and Microsoft throwing all kinds of public temper tantrums over the final report.
“The CMA’s report contradicts the ambitions of the UK to become an attractive country to build technology businesses,” Activision Blizzard’s Joe Christinat said in a statement provided to Ars Technica. “We will work aggressively with Microsoft to reverse this on appeal. The report’s conclusions are a disservice to UK citizens, who face increasingly dire economic prospects. We will reassess our growth plans for the UK. Global innovators large and small will take note that—despite all its rhetoric—the UK is clearly closed for business.”
Trying to read that statement without rolling your eyes takes the kind of fortitude of which I am not made. And, frankly, this only effects the UK market. But, and here’s where this might be more important, the decision does serve as a first-to-plunge rejection with the FTC’s suit to block the deal having not even begun yet, and with the EU’s formal decision not yet in place.
So the real question isn’t solely what happens in the UK, but how this decision might effect the decisions of the EU and American markets, which represent huge risks to this deal.
Filed Under: antitrust, cloud gaming, cma, competition, speculative, uk
Companies: activision, activision blizzard, microsoft


Comments on “Whoa: UK’s CMA Blocks Microsoft’s Acquisition Of Activision Blizzard”
Lol wut?
I played Ghostwire: Tokyo a couple of weeks ago on Game Pass, first on my MacBook. I could do this because a) cloud streaming works fine through operating systems other than Windows and b) the one year exclusivity window with PS5 had expired.
So, the solution which right now allows me to access games on a non-Windows OS through a multigame subscription service doesn’t cover concerns about new games having the same ability, even though I was unable to access the same game published by a company owned by Microsoft (Bethesda) for a year due to deals made previously with Sony? Madness.
I can understand some concerns about Microsoft leveraging their superiority in cloud gaming to negatively affect people in future, but compared to Sony’s tactics and in light that they’re committing to making Game Pass available on all formats possible, that rings hollow.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Lol. Whinge more, shill
Re: Re:
Yes, thank you for your constructive insight as to what’s wrong with what I said, that surely will change my opinion.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not trying to change your opinion, I am insulting you for having it.
Re: Re: Re:2
But, you can’t tell me why I’m wrong. Got it.
Re: Re: Re:3
“How dare you support a known monopolist!” Screeched the anonymous troll, who thinks Arch Linux is the best distro ever.
This isn’t to say that MS has never engaged in antitrust bullshit after what happened in California and the EU. They are actively blocking mentions of its competitors in their own corner of the site in the “field” of “AI-assisted tools”.
Basically, you are being mocked for supporting Microsoft.
Re: Re: Re:4
I support MS in their current form (I can play XBox games even on a MacBook or older gen Xbox) in opposition to Sony (I can’t play shit if I don’t buy their console), in view of them expanding the former ability to Nintendo and other platforms.
That doesn’t mean I’m an MS fanboy, I’m just addressing current reality.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Puttinf aside my overwhelming contempt for you for a moment; You’re wrong because the question of Sony’s business practices is largely irrelevant to whether the ABK/MS deal would be anticompetitive. To the extent that it is relevant, Sony’s market position supports not allowing the deal, as the way to prevent monopolies forming in an already consolidating industry is not to facilitate further market consolidation.
Re: Re: Re:4
Why is this flagged? I said putting aside my contempt for the Microsoft shill
Re: Re: Re:5
Because you decided to lie about me being an MS shill instead of listening to what I said?
Re: Re: Re:4
The way to stop Sony’s current anticompetitive practices is not necessarily to prevent their main competitor from doing the thing they already did to get their current position.
I understand concerns here, but when Sony tell Square not to release XBox games and buy up devs to only release on PS, it rings hollow when you’re only concerned about MS getting one more studio when the main complaint about the One was that they didn’t have enough exclusives to be competitive.
Re:
If I’m reading the article correctly, this is probably why the UK CMA blocked the deal.
I mean, MS has instructions on how to get Game Pass working on a Steam Deck. Which, hilariously, runs a version of of a Linux OS.
For all the focus on Sony and COD by the media in this acquisition story, I do find it interesting that ultimately Sony, PS and CoD are irrelevant to this decision (maybe we can now stop all the Sony/Jim Ryan memes?).
I also have to wonder that if Google Stadia was still around, given it is cloud gaming that the CMA have concerns about, would Google being in the market have eased some of those concernsaround that?
Let’s all take a moment to marvel at that scorched earth reaction from Microsoft and Activision Blizzard King. It is the reaction of the spoiled rich kid throwing a tantrum after they have been told ‘no’ for the first time and frankly it could actually harm their prospects at appeal.
Re:
“For all the focus on Sony and COD by the media in this acquisition story, I do find it interesting that ultimately Sony, PS and CoD are irrelevant to this decision”
They do still seem to be relevant to the decision. There’s another article on Ars where the CMA specifically raised concerns about CoD on Switch not being able to be a direct port of the XBox/PS versions due to performance concerns, but then the logical workaround would be xCloud, which they also reject because it’s anti-competitive? Then, of course, either of these options would be better than the nothing they have now?
“Let’s all take a moment to marvel at that scorched earth reaction from Microsoft and Activision Blizzard King”
It’s not a great look for sure. I can understand their point of view, given that they’ve been going out of their way to alleviate concerns, the sticking point seems to be their most open cross-platform offering, and they’ve probably been facing a lot of internal wrangling over how much investment they want to have in the UK market post-Brexit. But, that’s not the best response if they want to be looked upon favourably on appeal.
Re: Re:
Then, I have a question.
How would you feel if MS announces that they’re removing their first-party library from the Switch Store because they disagreed with how Nintendo is taking their business?
Or if said decision was due to a private spat? Sony admitted that much during the investigation period (in a manner of speaking).
Re: Re: Re:
“How would you feel if MS announces that they’re removing their first-party library from the Switch Store because they disagreed with how Nintendo is taking their business?”
Probably less concerned than I am when it’s known that Sony are telling publishers to not release XBox versions of games.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
qb
so nice
Oddly I saw a strange opinion piece on the NYT about this that was firmly against the decision by the UK CMA and in favor of Microsoft and Activision.
The Microsoft-Activision Mess Is a Blow to American Sovereignty
By Jay Clayton and Gary D. Cohn
Mr. Clayton was a chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Mr. Cohn was a director of the National Economic Council in the Trump administration.
That’s the headline and opinion author description.
'No really, we pinky-promise we would have dropped prices!'
“We will work aggressively with Microsoft to reverse this on appeal. The report’s conclusions are a disservice to UK citizens, who face increasingly dire economic prospects. We will reassess our growth plans for the UK. Global innovators large and small will take note that—despite all its rhetoric—the UK is clearly closed for business.”
Ah yes, because when I think about a less competitive market due to mergers between major companies and resulting exclusives my first thought is how inevitably prices drop like rocks, leaving the public so much better off because of it.
Re:
It’s not well worded and seems to be combining a couple of thoughts.
On the one hand, they’re saying that the UK economy is in a bad place post-COVID and post-Brexit, which is true. They’re also saying that they had been planning expansion in the UK market, and those plans will be reconsidered now that the merger has been opposed. Then, other companies will look at the situation and use it to guide their own plans.
So, they’re not saying that prices would go down for consumers if only the merger went through, they’re saying that they and other companies might take their investment in other products elsewhere as a result of this decision. Whether or not there’s any truth to that remains to be seen.
Re: Re:
The World’s economies aren’t in the best of shapes post-COVID, that is… not a very convincing argument.
That sure feels like a threat.
Re: Re: Re:
The UK is recovering notably more slowly than other nations, though. I don’t see recent numbers, but there’s things like this that don’t bode well, and I’ve not seen any reason to assume they’ve improved: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-economy-covid-worse-eu-us-boe-b2226487.html
Also, these comments from the Bank of England won’t make people more secure in investment: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65308769. That’s mainly about inflation and supply chain shortages than overall investment, but without investment people aren’t going to see wages catch up.
It does, but there is truth to it. I’m not sure how many companies will make long-term investment decisions based solely on the merger, but the UK overall is looking less attractive than it did a decade ago.
Re:
Insulting the legislators who approved of the Gaslighting Campaign that was Brexit is never a good idea if you are a megacorp.
Grammar Police
So the real question isn’t solely what happens in the UK, but how this decision might affect the decisions of the EU and American markets, which represent huge risks to this deal.
Sorry, one of my pet hates 😉
Holy shit a regulator is regulating something. Outta the way, there’s lottery tickets to buy!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
SAP Business ByDesign
By leveraging iMark’s SAP Business ByDesign (ByD), you can obtain a holistic, interconnected perspective of your mid-range or large enterprise, covering all facets of your operations. This framework gives you the tools to expand and succeed, without the added intricacy or expenditure
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
How about telling them to get fucked?
Neither company is based in the UK. It’s simply not the UK’s decision to make.
I'm curious
If the company is owned by people in the USA, and the company is incorporated in the USA, and they want to buy a company that is owned by people in the USA and incorporated in the USA, how exactly does a UK or EU regulator have any say whatsoever in whether that can happen?
If the FTC were to order a German company to not acquire another German company, would the German government block the acquisition, or would the German government laugh and ignore the FTC?
Re:
If the German company wanted to do business in the US it would have to do something to assuage the FTC’s concerns, yes.
Re:
Technically the only parts of Activision that make any money are in Barbados and Bermuda, so the question is moot
Thank you for sharing this content, a very good content for everyone, the article is enough for everyone to learn quality images.
https://www.hamptonturfandtree.com/
Confused
I’m sorry, what legal standing does the UK have over two US companies.
Forget what they say. F-em.