thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
I've been of the opinion it should go through with behavioral remedies, maybe at one point I didn't believe it should have any concessions, but I also believed Microsoft were being honest when they said they would continue to release CoD on Playstation.
If Sony were to acquire or try to acquire Take Two, I'd hope for the same scrutiny this deal is getting. My assumption would be that GTA gets the same treatment Call of Duty gets, but other games would be free reign. A new Red Dead could possibly be exclusive. Sports games are weird.. wouldn't care but I could see the Sports games getting scrutiny.
I do remember the Chile Call of Duty gamer survey having GTA be of higher importance than CoD itself. Sony might run into more regulatory hurdles with GTA than Microsoft is with CoD. Especially from the clear market leader position.
I wouldn't be against Sony acquiring Take Two as long as they went through the same regulatory hurdles.
So you're okay with industry consolidation, and a shrinking 3P publisher market that can function independently of ownership by a platform holder? Personally, I can't rock with that.
Regulators are in a tough spot here. If they give MS a slap on the wrist and pass the acquisition with gestural behavioral remedies, the floodgates are going to open. This isn't fearmongering; it's literally what is going to happen. Amazon, Apple, Google, Tencent, even other massive 3P publishers (imagine EA buying Devolver for example), even Sony...you're going to see the publisher space in this industry shrink in the blink of an eye. And VERY few of those acquisitions will be able to be turned down or enforced with structural remedies, because every single buyer will just point to the results of Microsoft buying ABK, and challenge the regulators.
If the regulators block their deals, they'll sue and win, and the consolidation will continue. Whether Microsoft likes it or not, they're serving as a critical example at a junction point for the industry. Other people have said this; I'm just adding onto these thoughts. How regulators handle this acquisition WILL set a standard one way or another and for the sake of the industry itself, let us hope it is a good one.
Which, for ME, means if they want to approve the deal? Fine, do so. But it should 100% involve structural remedies, even alongside behavioral ones. I don't care if Microsoft doesn't like that idea; this process isn't about making them happy. It's about doing what's right for the health of the market and its future. I said it before: divesting COD/Activision into an independent company that Microsoft can still retain partial ownership in, I think that's the fairest structural remedy you can offer them. Let Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo etc. buy publishing rights & marketing rights for COD to their own platforms (meaning, they also fund versions of those games for their platforms), let the divested company publish the game everywhere else. Put some sensible limitations on Day 1 subscription services inclusion for those games (regardless who it is, be it Microsoft, or Sony etc.) except in cases of people who outright bought the game in full (they should be able to cloud stream it as normal or access a cloud version with all the same features & purchasing options as the retail version).
That would literally solve practically all of the concerns when it comes to perpetual access to COD & Activision content for all platform holders & service providers. Let Microsoft keep Blizzard & King fully; they can do what they want with them. To me that's a fair structural remedy, and it still lets Microsoft keep the behavioral remedies they've already provided to Nintendo and Nvidia.
But Microsoft's defiance to in any way part with COD as part of a divestiture says a lot about their real intent of acquisition: they want 100% control of everything with ABK. And if they keep buying more publishers, they'll want the same.