Jim Ryan's Plea to stop the Activision deal

[SNG]

Here is compiled info for those who dont want to read Sony document.
Part 1

• The Transaction is a game-changer that poses a threat to an industry enjoyed by hundreds of millions of consumers.
• Post-Transaction, Microsoft would have the ability and incentive to exclude or restrict rivals, including PlayStation and PlayStation Plus, from having access to Call of Duty
• Consumers would be harmed. In the short-term, PlayStation users would no longer have access to Call of Duty or would be forced to spend £450 on an equivalent Xbox to play this hugely popular game on their less preferred device. In the mid-term, a significant number of PlayStation users would likely switch to Xbox and/or Game Pass
• Competition would be harmed. PlayStation’s and Xbox’s incentives to invest in innovation and quality improvements depend on the number of customers that competition can attract. Microsoft’s foreclosure strategy would lock in many consumers to Xbox, including existing Xbox users who play Call of Duty and those switching from PlayStation to play Call of Duty
• Independent developers would be harmed. Independent developers today have two principal options: PlayStation/PlayStation Plus and Xbox/Game Pass. By making Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox/Game Pass, the Transaction would tip demand for multi-game subscription services towards Xbox/Game Pass. As Microsoft foreclosed PlayStation/PlayStation Plus, it would likely become a critical distribution channel for independent developers
• The Transaction would harm nascent competition in cloud gaming. The Decision cogently explains how the Transaction would allow Microsoft to use Activision’s irreplaceable content to leverage Microsoft’s “ecosystem advantages” and thereby foreclose cloud gaming at a critical point of its evolution
• Microsoft would control irreplaceable content that drives user engagement. redacted info.
• Call of duty gamers are exceptionally important to playstation. Redacted info.
• Call of duty is different- and more important to gaming platforms- than the other games Microsoft mentions.
• SIE's, Microsoft's, and Activision's documents attest to the importance of Call of duty.
• Call of duty is not replicable.
• Nintendo focuses on family-friendly games that are very different to PEGI 18 FPS games like call of duty.
• Microsoft wants Sony to become like Nintendo, so that Sony would be less close and less effective compeititor.
• Call of duty is critical to Playstation. No game has rivaled the brand loyalty and network.
• Microsoft has not commited to continue making call of duty available on Playstation and Playstation plus.
• Mult_game subscription services. MS has not agreed to make call of duty and other activision titles available on SIE Playstation Plus, While MS made it clear, they would make it available on gamepass.
• MS activision games would be available until 2027.
• Phil Spencer playbook for bethesda content is evident for activision content.
• The Circumstance That, In The Recent Console Generation, Microsoft Is Somewhat Behind SIE Does Not Prevent Anti-competitive Effects From Arising
• Microsoft’s third argument on ToH1 is that “Sony is not vulnerable to a hypothetical foreclosure strategy” because “PlayStation has been the largest console platform for over 20 years” (Microsoft, para. 1.3(a)). The circumstance that Microsoft is currently somewhat behind SIE in console sales does not mean that the Transaction cannot harm competition and consumers.27 In reality, competition and consumers would be harmed in the short-term and long-term

 

[SNG]

• First, PlayStation users would be immediately and seriously harmed by Microsoft’s foreclosure strategy. Specifically, PlayStation users who prefer playing Call of Duty on PlayStation would be harmed by being denied the opportunity to play Call of Duty on their device of choice. They would face two options: either to not play Call of Duty or to incur a cost of £450 to buy an equivalent Xbox console and play Call of Duty on a less preferred device at a similar quality to the level they currently enjoy. In the former case, consumers would self-evidently lose the opportunity to play one of their favourite games. In the latter case, in addition to paying for a new console that they would not otherwise have bought,28 those PlayStation users who sold their consoles in the process of switching would lose access to their current PlayStation content library, causing further consumer harm.
• MS foreclosure would startegy would prefent SIE from competiting for a large portion of console gamers.
• There is a total of 205.1 million userbase between xbox and PS.
• Without call of duty, Sony would lose those players, and not able to replace them. Which in turn affects PS developers from reaching potential customers.
• SIE would lose a significant revenue, if COD is removed. Which in turn affects future investment, due to lost funding.
• Fifth, Microsoft’s statements on user numbers are unreliable. For completeness, Microsoft cites inaccurate figures on the relative positions of PlayStation and Xbox. Microsoft claims that even if all of PlayStation’s MAUs that play Call of Duty left PlayStation, PlayStation would still be left with “significantly more” MAUs than Xbox (Microsoft, para. 3.19). This does not accord with SIE data. In 2021, there were, on average, million MAUs of Call of Duty (and million accounts that played Call of Duty during the year). Based on these figures, if the million MAUs switched to Xbox, PlayStation would be left with far fewer MAUs than Xbox,31 before taking into account the direct and indirect network effects that would exacerbate switching (Decision, para. 203(a); IS, para. 32
• Finally, Microsoft seeks to distract from its foreclosure strategy by suggesting that SIE “engages in conduct which is reflective of its market power” because SIE recently increased the price of PlayStation consoles (Microsoft, para. 1.3(c), second bullet). SIE strongly disputes this claim. SIE’s decision to increase the recommended retail price of PlayStation 5 reflected adverse currency trends, supply shortages, and global inflation.32 Microsoft, for its part, has recently hinted at upcoming price increases for Xbox consoles and Game Pass. 33
• Theory of Harm 2: Input Foreclosure of Rival Multi-game Subscription Services 30. Under Theory of Harm 2 (“ToH 2”), the IS and Decision explain that Microsoft would have the ability and incentive to lessen current and future competition in multi-game subscription services (Decision, paras. 213-234; IS, paras. 35-36
• Activision content would be exclusive to MS gamepass, compared to pre transaction, which has equal chance on Multi-game subscription.
• SIE's documents attest to the danger of Cal of duty becoming exclusive to gamepass. Redacted info.
• SIE uses independant survey to show the affect of call of duty on gamepass (Survery was posted here, and had less than 10k users).
• Developers would also be hardmed by unequal access to call of duty on multi-game subscription services. Excluding activision content from PS plus would also affect independent game developers. Those independant developers would likely recieve worse terms for their content from MS, once MS becomes dominant.

 

[SNG]

Part 3

• MS advances three main arguments, which arent persuasive to the CMA.
• First, MS argues that multi-game subscription services are not a market, but a means of payment. Multi-game services arent means of payment. They are an alternative to "buy to play", which allows consumers to access broad library of video games.
• Second, MS argues that "there are not facts-anywhere-to -support(The) assertion" that activision content strategy, under which no multi-game subscription service receives preferential treatment- would change post-Transaction. MS maybe claim there are no "facts", but CMA document tells different story.
• MS argument is misconceved. Today, no multi-game subscription services has an advantage by being to offer activision irreplaceable content, because activision has not made it available in any multi-game subscription service.
• Giving gamepass exclusive access to call of duty and other activision games would title the demand for multi-game subscription services, irreparable in MS favour. For this alone, the transaction should be challenged.
• Third, MS demand for multi game subscription would not tip towards gamepass, because MS would also make gamepas availabe on Playstation. Making it available there would make it harder for the rivals to compete. This solution is hallow, considering PS plus isnt permited to be available on Xbox

 

[SNG]

Part 4

• Theory of Harm 3: Foreclosure of Cloud-Gaming Service Providers Through Leveraging Microsoft’s Ecosystem
• Under ToH3, the Decision found that Microsoft would leverage its broad multi-product ecosystem – including its leading cloud platform (Azure); its leading gaming system (Xbox); and its dominant PC OS (Windows) – together with Activision’s gaming content to “strengthen network effects, raise barriers to entry, and hence foreclose rivals in cloud gaming services” (Decision, para. 239; IS, para. 39). The Decision further found that Microsoft would have the ability and incentive to engage in a variety of foreclosure strategies, including: withholding Activision’s content; denying or degrading rival cloud gaming providers’ access to Azure; and denying or degrading rivals’ access to Windows (Decision, para. 275
• Microsoft has a structural advantage in cloud-computing services because of its deep and broad ecosystem advantages. Microsoft’s success with Azure and Windows (the dominant PC operating system on which the vast majority of PC games are played) will give it opportunities to undercut SIE on cloud streaming for console and PC. Microsoft has already publicly trumpeted its advantages in cloud gaming. As Phil Spencer remarked: “When you talk about Nintendo and SIE, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward… That’s not to disrespect Nintendo and SIE, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position.”43 Since then, Google has announced that it is closing its cloud gaming service, Stadia, including because of an absence of critical content.44 Amazon, for its part, has struggled to gain traction in cloud gaming
• The effects of a Microsoft foreclosure strategy in cloud gaming would harm consumers and game publishers. Cloud gaming is “at an early stage of its development” and strengthening network effects and raising barriers to entry “could affect all current and potential rivals” (IS, para. 44). This would deny customers the benefit of competition between cloud gaming platforms or, at the very least, “a longer period of competition between platforms vying to be the ‘winning platform’ in these markets” (IS, para. 44). For game publishers, the CMA explained that if Microsoft were to become a gatekeeper between publishers and gamers, that would ultimately give Microsoft the ability to “control access to gamers, charge high fees for game distribution, and manipulate game rankings” (Decision, para. 293
• SIE agrees with thorough analysis in the decision and the framework for assesment set out in the IS. If consumed MS would be in a unique postion, where they are the only company with sole control over such a large library, and the levers to determine how competition plays out in the nascent space, thanks to its windows OS and Azure platform. Redacted info.
• In response to that, MS raises four main points, None is sound.
• First MS argues that CMA theory of harm is "Novel and without precedent". There is nothing novel about a leveraging theory of harm, whereby a digital platform uses existing advantages in one area to harm competition in a nascant space. MS is under invistigtation for leveraging practices involving Azure and Windows.
• Second MS argues that "Consumer adoption for cloud gaming remains low". Competition is worthy of protection, as competition among services that already enjoy substantial usage, as MS knows well.
• Third, MS argues that in the counterfactual, Activision content would not be available on cloud gaming services. That is misconceived. A with multi-game subscription services, Activision content in the counterfactual might become available to cloud gaming services in the future on equal terms. Under the transaction, MS would have the ability and incentivie to keep that content exclusively to itself.
• Fourth, MS argues that "It does not have a market-leading position in gaming to protect". But this theory of harm is about MS using its leading position in PC OSs, cloud platform services, and gaming content(Via acquired Activision content) to foreclose competition in cloud gaming. There is no requirement in such as leveraging theory for there to be market power in the foreclosed product, as MS well knows. MS publically explained the link between "Content, community, and cloud". MS already has the community(via xbox, windows and linkedln), and the cloud(Via Azure), and through the transaction, it would add Activision's vast content to its existing propreitary games, giving it everything it would need to tip demand and its favour and foreclose actua or potential rivals.
• Conclusion, The Transaction threatens the gaming ecosystem at a critical moment. It would take an irreplaceable gaming franchise, Call of Duty, out of independent hands and combine it with Microsoft’s highly-successful gaming system (Xbox), leading multi-game subscription service (Game Pass), dominant PC OS (Windows), and leading cloud platform (Azure). The only way to preserve robust competition and protect consumers and independent developers is to ensure that Activision remains independently owned and controlled

 

[SNG]

I really hope this deal goes through.

 

[The Mad Titan]

Sony stans and Sony themselves work on the same logic

 

[The Mad Titan]

I really hope this deal goes through.

I kinda hope it doesn't. I'd like to see MS "unleash the flutes on em"

 

[Monsanto]

If no one gets anything else from this, if this acquisition is denied it is because of this

• The Transaction would harm nascent competition in cloud gaming. The Decision cogently explains how the Transaction would allow Microsoft to use Activision’s irreplaceable content to leverage Microsoft’s “ecosystem advantages” and thereby foreclose cloud gaming at a critical point of its evolution

This is huge and allowing this deal to go through pretty much rips up the market.

 

[TaxCollector13459]

Hope it goes through, fukk it

 

[SNG]

I kinda hope it doesn't. I'd like to see MS "unleash the flutes on em"

They trying to strong arm game pass onto playstation. They basically like y’all can still have call of duty under one condition.

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

If the deal passes (which i think it will with concessions or divestments) its whatever. All this hoopla pretty much shuts down the idea of more huge third party publishers being bought out. Which will probably happen regardless and even if i cared about Activisions library, all their big games will remain multiplatform so nothing really changes at this point.

If this deal fails, oh boy the jokes will be glorious

 

[Inertia Creeps]

Sony execs and "lawyers" some of the stupidest human beings on earth I swear Coli console war stans are more self-aware than these neanderthals.... and they're actually tryna cop pleas at industry regulatory bodies with arguments like this

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

Sony execs and "lawyers" some of the stupidest human beings on earth I swear Coli console war stans are more self-aware than these neanderthals.... and they're actually tryna cop pleas at industry regulatory bodies with arguments like this

Seems to be working

 

[CoolinInTheCut]

There's a lot of good arguments and a lot of exaggeration. But that's how negotiations go.

 

[CoolinInTheCut]

Sony execs and "lawyers" some of the stupidest human beings on earth I swear Coli console war stans are more self-aware than these neanderthals.... and they're actually tryna cop pleas at industry regulatory bodies with arguments like this

Never understood people blaming Sony for $70 games when 2K was the first $70 game. But I guess bots will be bots.