I think many here would admit the deal can pass with concessions. The idea that this deal was going to pass without concessions was nothing but a wet dream in the current climate of consumer protectionism.
The biggest question here is whether or not Microsoft is willing to commit to those concessions or not.
If the EU, FTC and CMA make harsh demands like requiring for the most popular franchises to have a 12 year period of supply into the competition without any substantial preferential treatment towards Microsoft's platform (such as putting those games on their subscription service(s) on day 1), only then will we see Microsoft's commitment to the acquisition.
It's an interesting question, just how much are MS about this deal really. You would think, if it's about having a foothold in mobile and cloud, if whatever disturbance it could cause to Sony is just a bonus they could otherwise do without, if MS's past words about these acquisitions being about fending off Google, Apple, Amazon etc. (their "real" competitors, as they said a couple years ago), then any concessions stipulating supply of ABK's biggest IP to competing consoles for a decade or more would be okay be them.
Sure, it would be an annoyance, but if the target isn't actually to cripple a company like Sony whom in the past were not mentioned as a 'real' competitor, then whether they get those games for some years afterwards and with no particular perk benefits advantage for either of them, then I'd suspect MS wouldn't have a problem if that meant keeping Amazon, Apple etc. from getting ABK and controlling that content supply.
IMO if they can't lock CoD out of Playstation for the 10th generation consoles (~5 years?) and during that time make it look like the value proposition on Sony's side is much worse with year-long platform delays, day 1 gamepass, exclusive content, etc., then Microsoft is out of the deal.
This would line up more with the reality that seems to be manifesting, meaning for MS Sony is in fact a "real" competitor. I don't have anything against what MS would want to do here at a basic level; it's what any company would want to do with content they own which they feel could be leveraged against competitors. And as the company owning the content, I would think at a basic level MS are entitled to do things like Day 1 GamePass, exclusive content perks etc. because we see Sony do that for some 3P games they have comarketing rights to, let alone timed exclusivity.
So, I'm not sure if regulators would push for those types of concessions. Some of those might just be a bit extreme in terms of limiting what MS can do with content they've paid up for. But I do think it would be a good idea if concessions involved making sure Microsoft could not simply shut Sony out from bidding on those types of perks or marketing deals with IP like COD going forward.
But I think that could only be established if say COD were spun off as its own company, or there were some 3P approvals board established to handle biddings between platform holders for content perks, marketing deals etc. regardless of Microsoft owning the IP.
This acquisition is about trying to kill Sony on the next generation. The rest is peanuts.
And that's what makes me conflicted about it to a degree. On one hand, of course Microsoft would like a scenario where Sony's no longer a viable competitor and Xbox can eat up their market share. Any company in Microsoft's position would want that in relation to their competitors. So from a business POV I can understand that thinking.
I can probably even understand it from a customer POV because, hey, if it means those games are coming to Game Pass, that's money I get to keep saved in my pocket by subscribing vs. paying for the game outright. But, as a gamer, I can't gel with that scenario. Because the truth is Sony's been a better platform holder and market leader in gaming than pretty much
every other platform holder.
Better than Microsoft.
Better than Sega.
Better than NEC.
Better than Nintendo.
If we're talking about having the best balance of big 1P games, quality 1P experiences, market-leading/industry-defining 1P games, capable hardware, fair prices, good marketing/branding/messaging, empowerment of 3P developers, services, and fostering market-leading/industry-defining gaming experiences (1P & 3P), there isn't a
single platform holder that's consistently provided a better balance of that for multiple generations than Sony, and that's an indisputable fact. This isn't fanboyism talking; just look at the market results since Sony jumped in and see where they are now. That said, it doesn't mean I don't love Nintendo, Sega etc. consoles or games (some of my
favorite consoles & games are from Nintendo & Sega!!), or that there aren't specific areas where other platform holders have had advantages over Sony in here or there (Sega for example with arcade games, Nintendo with platformers, Microsoft with online gaming services etc.).
But as an average, over multiple years, Sony comes out with the best balance. That's why they've been the market leader in home consoles for four of five generations, and the one generation they really fumbled (PS3), they still managed to recover and edge out the 360 (and have a much stronger finish in terms of games). So yeah as a gamer I would have some big problems if Sony were forced out of the market by a company that, historically, hasn't offered the most-balanced offering for multiple generations, and still has
glaring issues with messaging, management, and output to this day.
I
obviously want Microsoft to be successful. But, not if it comes at the expense of Sony being pushed out simply due to having less money to compete via buying out big publishers. Not because they made a series of poor business decisions pissing off their customer base like Sega, or making a so-far-ahead-of-its-time-it-was-disastrous business model like 3DO, or making bad hardware with lacking 1P support like Atari or failing to innovate with hardware like NEC. No, simply getting pushed out because they don't make a ton of money from other non-gaming areas that they could use to subsidize continued losses in gaming for years or even decades.
That's not a valid reason to be pushed out of a market IMHO.
.
-545007.jpeg)
