Microsoft buys Activision-Blizzard

There's more that can result from this than just allowing or blocking the merger.

It's not just the game/Xbox side of MS that's going to be investigated, it's all aspects that tie into this potentially larger Xbox division.

They can force additional order provisions on MS and allow the merger, block the deal outright, or even block the deal and still impose order provisions on MS.

But I would say that actually works against them, as it means they're purposefully trying to control part of the supply of games in order to try force their competitor to allow Gamepass on Playstation.

Probably a bad example, but if McDonalds bought companies that supplied Burger King in order to affect Burger King or make them offer McDonalds products in their stores, that would be an issue.

If Microsoft are taking control of COD which is regularly the best-selling game on Playstation and then saying "We'll let you have COD on Playstation but only through you allowing Gamepass on Playstation", that could be one of the issues the FTC are investigating.

The issue is more likely to come from COD's existing and historical popularity on Playstation and the money that Sony make from that, which has now been taken away. Whereas The Last Of Us was made by a Sony-owned company, for Sony. It was never on Xbox to begin with, nor did Naughty Dog ever make any games for Xbox. Similarly, Insomniac made a few games for Xbox but were also mostly a Sony studio.

Exclusives aren't an issue by themselves, nor are companies acquiring studios. But when an acquisition will likely have a huge effect like in this case, then all facets of the deal need to be reviewed. Given the money Sony makes on sales of COD plus all DLCs, Microtransactions etc, plus how many gamers would buy consoles almost just to play COD given its fanbase (and it's probably fair enough to add in Overwatch too given how popular that game was and sales of lootboxes), then it has a much bigger effect than the likes of The Last Of Us (and Naughty Dog almost completely just made games for Playstation before being acquired, and made TLOU specifically for PS).

I'm not so sure it would be fine, or at the very least I can see why they're reviewing it. Buying COD and taking it off Playstation, given that it's the best selling game on PS most years with Sony getting about 30% of sales, is potentially a huge financial loss to Sony and makes Playstation a less attractive puchase for COD players. Saying they can have COD but only if they allow Gamepass on Playstation as well (bearing in mind COD will be available on Gamepass meaning if Gamepass was on PS most gamers would get it through their Gamepass sub rather than buying it from the PS Store) could be seen as anti-competitive.

Again, from an antitrust point of view, it could be seen as MS making this move to damage their competitor and force Sony to let Gamepass on their system, which as many here have also stated is Microsoft's ultimate goal.

Part of what antitrust laws are designed for though is to prevent the risk of monopolies. While Gamepass on PlayStation might offer consumers more choice, there could be a risk that Microsoft go too far ahead in terms of streaming/subscription for gaming that Sony then can't catch up or nor can anyone else. And if Microsoft are then so far ahead of everyone else, they can charge what they want or do whatever they want and they'll still have the market sewn up, which is ultimately bad for consumers.

I'm speaking in hypotheticals and extremes of course, I'm just saying it's a complicated situation and the FTC have elected to review it to determine the likelihood of such hypothetical and extremes, because that's their role particularly given the size and knock-on effect of this acquisition, as well as it coming after the Zenimax acquisition. I think it's unlikely anything will stop the deal going ahead as planned.

Based on this bit

The Bureau of Competition is committed to preventing mergers and acquisitions that are likely to reduce competition and lead to higher prices, lower quality goods or services, or less innovation.

I can't see how this merger would be stopped.

Rather than reducing competition it is increasing it (Sony is hammering MS in sales numbers, this will make MS more competitive).

Rather than higher prices it will be on GamePass, thus arguably lower and MS sales prices have in general been lower iirc.

Rather than lower quality goods I would think MS might give more time or look to squeeze less than AB did, so hopefully higher quality.

Less innovation? More likely to entice Sony to create its own FPS (beyond Call of Duty and Overwatch what could be argued over from a console competiton point of view), or open the space for another FPS to hit it big on PS5/6/7 so a new entrant with new innovations.

I do wish GamePass would see a general end to exclusivity - even if just for games that are not historically MS first party titles. For me, I would like to see Call of Duty on GamePass day 1 every year (or whatever schedule) but still be purchasable on Playstation. Same as with the Sony/Bungie purchase where they have already said Bungie games will remain multiplat - have those games day 1 on Project Spartacus but purchasable elsewhere. I wouldn't argue for Halo or God of War to be multiplat - but Call of Duty, Overwatch, Destiny etc - these are games I think should remain mlti-plat but use availability for 'free' on the subscription service as a 'come to our console' driver.

Exactly. They're pulling from the overall Microsoft bank account, but eventually the bill comes due. They need to earn back the 75bn+ they've spent on ActiBlizz & Zenimax, not to mention the money they pay out for deals to have third party games on Gamepass.

If they start to become the only true streaming service and so far ahead of anyone else, the costs start to go to the consumers to pay back, as well as offering lower deals to third parties because they're really the only show in town.

Again, I'm not sure if the FTC investigation will stall or change the deal in any way as I'm sure MS lawyers have looked into it as much as possible in that regard, but the more studios and the bigger the studios MS start acquiring, the more the FTC might decide to try clamp down on it.

FIFA is on Gamepads but it's the prior year version. COD will be included in GP.

Two games cost €140-160 and you can get three years of GP for less that that.

Genuine Question - if a company like activision announce (using round, off the top of my head figures) 100 million in revenue from call of duty, is that solely the games themselves, or does it factor in things like merchandise, (posters, mugs, tees, funko pops?) I assume it does?

Using their size to limit competition to then increase prices would be predatory pricing, and then they're right in the middle of another investigation.