The Epic Saga: Who Was Blocking the Microsoft-Activision Deal?
Fast answer first. Then use the tabs or video for more detail.
- Watch the video explanation below for a faster overview.
- Game mechanics may change with updates or patches.
- Use this block to get the short answer without scrolling the whole page.
- Read the FAQ section if the article has one.
- Use the table of contents to jump straight to the detailed section you need.
- Watch the video first, then skim the article for specifics.
The question of who was blocking the Microsoft-Activision deal is more complex than it initially appears. While the answer evolved throughout the protracted process, the key players involved in either blocking or attempting to block the $68.7 billion acquisition were primarily two major regulatory bodies: the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Initially, both agencies raised serious concerns about the potential impact of the merger on competition, albeit focusing on slightly different aspects of the market. However, the CMA eventually approved a restructured deal.
The Key Players in the Blockade
The following entities initially posed significant obstacles:
-
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA): Initially, the CMA flat out blocked the deal in April, citing concerns about its impact on the emerging cloud gaming market. The CMA feared that Microsoft would leverage Activision’s popular titles to dominate this nascent sector, stifling innovation and limiting consumer choice.
-
The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The FTC also sought to block the acquisition, arguing that it would give Microsoft an unfair advantage in the gaming industry, potentially leading to higher prices, less innovation, and reduced consumer choice. The FTC’s concerns focused more broadly on the overall console and game distribution markets.
However, this situation changed. The FTC was unsuccessful in its legal challenges to halt the merger, and the CMA eventually approved a revised deal. Thus, the initial blocks were overcome.
Unpacking the CMA’s Opposition
The CMA’s primary concern centered on the potential impact on cloud gaming. This relatively new method allows players to access games via remote servers, essentially streaming them like movies on Netflix. The CMA believed that acquiring Activision Blizzard, with its vast library of popular titles, would give Microsoft an unfair advantage in this growing market.
The CMA feared that Microsoft could make Activision’s games exclusive to its own cloud gaming service, Xbox Cloud Gaming, thereby harming rival services and ultimately reducing choice for UK gamers. This was a key reason for their initial decision to block the merger.
The FTC’s Concerns and Legal Battles
The FTC, on the other hand, focused on the broader implications for the console and game distribution markets. They argued that Microsoft could leverage Activision’s franchises, particularly Call of Duty, to gain an unfair advantage over its rivals, namely Sony (PlayStation) and Nintendo.
The FTC sought a preliminary injunction in federal court to prevent the deal from closing before its in-house administrative proceedings could be completed. However, a federal judge denied the FTC’s request, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also rejected the agency’s appeal. Ultimately, the FTC withdrew its in-house case, paving the way for the deal to close.
The Resolution: A Restructured Deal and Approval
After the CMA initially blocked the deal, Microsoft and Activision submitted a restructured transaction for review. This revised agreement addressed the CMA’s concerns about cloud gaming by divesting Activision’s cloud gaming rights outside of the European Economic Area to Ubisoft.
This restructuring effectively allowed other companies to license Activision Blizzard’s games for their cloud gaming services, ensuring that Microsoft wouldn’t have exclusive control over these titles in the cloud. After reviewing the revised deal, the CMA concluded that it addressed their concerns and approved the acquisition.
The Microsoft-Activision deal finally closed after more than 20 months of scrutiny. The acquisition signifies Microsoft’s commitment to expand its reach in the gaming industry, and it has vast implications for the future of gaming. To further explore how games and learning intersect, visit the Games Learning Society at https://www.gameslearningsociety.org/.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Here are 15 frequently asked questions about the Microsoft-Activision deal and the regulatory hurdles it faced:
1. What was the main reason the UK (CMA) initially blocked the Microsoft-Activision deal?
The main reason was the CMA’s concern about the potential impact on the cloud gaming market. They feared Microsoft could leverage Activision’s games to dominate this emerging sector.
2. Why did the FTC try to block Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard?
The FTC argued that the deal was anti-competitive and could allow Microsoft to withhold Activision’s popular games from rival consoles or diminish the experience on competing services.
3. What specific game was a major point of contention in the deal?
Call of Duty was a major point of contention, as it is a highly popular franchise and a potential leverage point for Microsoft against its competitors, particularly Sony.
4. How did Microsoft address the CMA’s concerns about cloud gaming?
Microsoft addressed the concerns by restructuring the deal to divest Activision’s cloud gaming rights outside of the European Economic Area to Ubisoft.
5. What is cloud gaming, and why was it so important to the regulators?
Cloud gaming is a technology that allows players to access games via remote servers. It was important to regulators because they viewed it as a potentially transformative area of the gaming market, and they wanted to ensure fair competition.
6. Did the CMA ultimately approve the Microsoft-Activision deal?
Yes, the CMA ultimately approved the deal after Microsoft restructured it to address their concerns about cloud gaming.
7. Was the FTC successful in blocking the Microsoft-Activision deal?
No, the FTC was not successful in blocking the deal. Their request for a preliminary injunction was denied, and they eventually withdrew their in-house case.
8. What is the role of the CMA and FTC in mergers and acquisitions?
The CMA and FTC are competition regulators responsible for reviewing mergers and acquisitions to ensure they do not harm competition or consumer interests.
9. What could have happened if Microsoft had ignored the CMA’s decision?
If Microsoft had ignored the CMA’s decision, the CMA could have imposed heavy fines and taken other enforcement actions.
10. How long did the Microsoft-Activision deal take to complete?
The Microsoft-Activision deal took more than 20 months to complete, due to regulatory scrutiny and legal challenges.
11. Who is Ubisoft, and what role did they play in the Microsoft-Activision deal?
Ubisoft is a video game company that acquired Activision’s cloud gaming rights outside of the European Economic Area. This was a key part of Microsoft’s restructuring to gain CMA approval.
12. What are the potential benefits of the Microsoft-Activision acquisition?
Potential benefits include increased competition, the release of Activision games on Xbox Game Pass, and more investment in new gaming technologies.
13. What are the potential risks or downsides of the Microsoft-Activision acquisition?
Potential risks include less innovation if Microsoft dominates the market and potentially higher prices for consumers in the long run if competition decreases.
14. Has Microsoft finalized the deal to acquire Activision Blizzard?
Yes, Microsoft has finalized its acquisition of Activision Blizzard.
15. Where can I learn more about the intersection of games and learning?
You can learn more about the intersection of games and learning by visiting the GamesLearningSociety.org.