Here are some of the biggest revelations from the Microsoft vs FTC hearing

Daniel Sims

Posts: 1,376   +43
Staff
In brief: As Microsoft faces off in court against the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its bid to acquire Activision Blizzard, numerous surprising details have come to light regarding the relationship between Microsoft, Sony, Bethesda Game Studios, Activision Blizzard, and other companies. It appears Microsoft and Sony have spent years fighting behind the scenes over exclusivity rights to landmark titles.

Exclusivity has been the most prominent sticking point of the opposition from Sony and the FTC against Microsoft's $69 billion attempt to purchase Activision Blizzard. Since Microsoft announced the deal in January 2022, it and Sony have jostled back and forth between Sony's claims that its competitor would degrade or withhold PlayStation versions of Activision's Call of Duty franchise, and Microsoft's assurances to the contrary. However, testimony during hearings reveals a much more complicated situation.

One of the hearing's first revelations could undercut Sony's prior statements about Call of Duty. An email unsealed minutes into the proceedings revealed that PlayStation head Jim Ryan was never concerned about the possibility of the franchise becoming exclusive to Xbox. He wrote that he believed the critical sales driver would continue to see releases on PlayStation for the foreseeable future.

While Microsoft has stated on multiple occasions that it would allow Activision Blizzard to continue developing Call of Duty on PlayStation 5 and future PlayStation consoles after the acquisition, Ryan brought the longevity of that agreement into question during the hearing. In a deposition, he suggested that Sony would withhold next-generation PlayStation development kits from Microsoft subsidiaries.

Xbox head Phil Spencer suggested that the policy has already stopped Microsoft-owned studios from fully supporting PlayStation, but the claim's veracity might not be ironclad. Since purchasing Minecraft studio Mojang, Microsoft has kept developing the monumentally popular title for rival platforms like PlayStation, Nintendo, and Apple, but Spencer said it didn't optimize the game for PS5 due to a lack of proper dev kits.

However, Minecraft also doesn't have an optimized version for Xbox Series X and S. Furthermore, Minecraft Legends launched in April for PS5 and Xbox Series consoles. The only title in the franchise currently favoring Xbox is Minecraft Dungeons, which has an optimized Xbox Series version but is only available on PS5 through the backward-compatible PS4 version. During the hearing, the FTC noted that Microsoft previously considered canceling the PlayStation version of Minecraft Dungeons.

The exclusivity of titles from Bethesda Game Studios, which Microsoft acquired in 2020, has also become an important subject in the court battle. The FTC pointed to the absence of a PlayStation version of Starfield as evidence that Microsoft's promises regarding Activision games aren't trustworthy. However, Spencer revealed that Microsoft bought Bethesda after learning that Sony was possibly paying for the game to remain a PS5 exclusive.

Aside from Call of Duty, perhaps the most important upcoming title for establishing Microsoft's multiplatform release policy is Bethesda's The Elder Scrolls VI. At the hearing, Spencer refused to confirm what platforms it will debut on, claiming that it's too early for such details because the game is at least five years away. Its release platforms may depend on whether Microsoft receives development tools for the PS5's successor.

Aside from game exclusivity, Microsoft's dominance in the emerging cloud gaming market is another significant pillar of the legal battle. Cloud was the main reason the UK's Competition and Markets Authority gave for denying approval for the acquisition.

To assuage those concerns, Microsoft has entered agreements to offer its games on other cloud services to prove that it wouldn't make Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox Cloud gaming. Furthermore, the company continues to downplay the importance of the cloud.

In a cross-examination, Sarah Bond, Head of Xbox Creator Experience, said that cloud gaming was the least popular feature of Microsoft's Game Pass subscription service. Some speculate that cloud gaming could become a critical separate game market, but Bond suggested it's just an extra perk in the existing console space. She said subscribers mostly use the functionality to stream games on a console while waiting for non-streaming versions to finish installing.

Likely Microsoft's starkest attempt to play the little guy, despite its ability to buy another company for $69 billion, is its admission during the hearing that it has lost the "console wars." Since entering the console market over 20 years ago, Xbox consoles have usually been in third place behind PlayStation and Nintendo systems, and the company's recent comments on the race are likely meant to imply that purchasing Activision Blizzard wouldn't hand it an anticompetitive amount of market power.

If the court grants the FTC's requested injunction, Microsoft and Activision Blizzard won't be able to complete the deal until after the FTC's antitrust hearing on August 2. This would force the companies to miss the acquisition contract's original July 18 deadline, potentially killing the purchase.

Permalink to story.

 
This whole suit is stupid beyond belief, no there won't be a xbox/microsoft game monopoly because there is 3 million other game studios. In a field with 3 million competitors how the HELL can there be a monopoly.
 
Yeah, to me it all just makes Sony look petty and abusive of their console market lead. Heck, even this FTC stuff looks like they're just trying to protect Sony's interests with the weirdly narrow focus on how it could affect PS (the market leader)...
 
Sony's paranoia will only cause highly anticipated Microsoft games for the PS6 delayed at least a year.

So much paranoia and yet the Series X ended up being slightly better piece of hardware than the PS5...that goes to show how backwards Sony's mentality really is.
 
Bethesda made game exclusively for the game console which paid them most.
Microsoft learned the lesson and bought Bethesda entire game studio.
Both Microsoft and Sony corporations play dirty, and is funny how both persuade FTC that they should be trusted only by their own words and because they say so.
It's like all of these gaming studio corporations are "asking" for a more tight, fair and strict regulations from FTC. :cool:
 
A shallow assumption.

If a particular console has 2x more units sold, which one are you more likely to accept exclusivity over? As in, not who pays the most....
A shallow conclusion, citing you. What exactly you want to imply? I stated the obvious in context of console corporations "drama". And Bethesda could have chose to make games for all consoles, many gaming studios did and are doing for both consoles Xbox, Sony and PC.
And these kind of practices, like "exclusivity" lead those 2 console companies to buy gaming studios like a contest.
 
A shallow conclusion, citing you. What exactly you want to imply? I stated the obvious in context of console corporations "drama". And Bethesda could have chose to make games for all consoles, many gaming studios did and are doing for both consoles Xbox, Sony and PC.
And these kind of practices, like "exclusivity" lead those 2 console companies to buy gaming studios like a contest.
Let me spell it out for you: If MS wanted to pay for exclusivity, they would have to pay a lot more to make up for having a smaller player base to potentially buy it (so why not just buy them for long-term gain).

Is that obvious enough for you to understand how shallow your assumption is yet? It's not just about who offered a little more money 🤦‍♂️
 
We shouldn't just stop at console exclusivity. We need competitors to Steam on PC, force devs to release on GOG.
No one is forcing anyone to exclusively sell on Steam for PC. They just have the best storefront (and pretty much because of that, the biggest userbase).
It's not even in the same ballpark as console platforms....
 
Let me spell it out for you: If MS wanted to pay for exclusivity, they would have to pay a lot more to make up for having a smaller player base to potentially buy it (so why not just buy them for long-term gain).

Is that obvious enough for you to understand how shallow your assumption is yet? It's not just about who offered a little more money 🤦‍♂️
It seems that you like to contradict even when my message is exactly about that. For Microsoft, next best step was to buy Bethesda. Why buy only a game exclusivity when is better to buy the entire game studio. And both companies did this and now they quarell that what the other does is not exactly fair for a competitive gaming market. Funny.
I understood quite well, and few steps ahead. Please keep up with the whole story, otherwise I suggest you to keep the debate at least civilized.
 
It seems that you like to contradict even when my message is exactly about that. For Microsoft, next best step was to buy Bethesda. Why buy only a game exclusivity when is better to buy the entire game studio. And both companies did this and now they quarell that what the other does is not exactly fair for a competitive gaming market. Funny.
I understood quite well, and few steps ahead. Please keep up with the whole story, otherwise I suggest you to keep the debate at least civilized.
No, you clearly didn't understand. And now that I've called you out, you magically meant something else. Because this
Bethesda made game exclusively for the game console which paid them most.
was bad assumption from the start. They had to go beyond what Sony would've paid. Not just a dollar over (that's hyperbole, FYI) as you suggested.

Anyways, whatever. You can pretend that you implied something else. But it was never about who would only pay a little more.
 
DSerius and m4a4, that's enough of your personal argument in this thread.
 
This whole suit is stupid beyond belief, no there won't be a xbox/microsoft game monopoly because there is 3 million other game studios. In a field with 3 million competitors how the HELL can there be a monopoly.
How many other publisher/companies are backed up by biggest company on earth? How many other companies can create a game pass where people could pay 1 usd for access to hundreds of games and still be happy because cloud/windows division will cover the loss? How many other companies have in-house solution to deploy cloud gaming without incurring additional costs?
Everything MS is doing with Xbox is a monopoly. Undercutting prices of a game pass, freely moving money from non-gaming branches to sustain xbox one, buying publishers and well established IP's. They are a monopoly, and the reason for bit lower revenue is only giving stuff for free so the sheep can easily follow and to pretend they are loosing.
And there is no point in complaining about xbox sales. Console selling if there are good games on it. MS have more studios than Sony and they didn't release nearly no new good games in last 10 years - they just double up on existing series. They do not create new games, they do not selling new games as they put them for undercut price on the market - how do you expect them to get better result?
But now they are saying they loosing generation so they should be allowed to buy huge publisher. Damn, they are already have studios and resources to do games! why should they be excused to get even more market if they are simply making decisions to not being successful because they do everything to push for GAAS? They clearly don't want to make games, so why bother? The reason is they want Sony to include GP on their system, so in the end they still wont be doing games, but they would generate money just from being a middle man. They just want to be another Apple who have huge gaming revenue without bothering with games. The issue is, they need to have a leverage for Sony and Nintendo to allow GP on their system - buying publishers is such leverage.
 
How many other publisher/companies are backed up by biggest company on earth? How many other companies can create a game pass where people could pay 1 usd for access to hundreds of games and still be happy because cloud/windows division will cover the loss? How many other companies have in-house solution to deploy cloud gaming without incurring additional costs?

SNIP

Sony, Nintendo, Google
 
Sony, Nintendo, Google
from list above only google. Sony's Gaming division is the best performing one, with Music, Pictures, Entertainment, Imaging & sensing, Financial services barely making even. Sony's a few years ago was in big crisis and that still haven't changed - while in MS for example Gaming is one of weakest division and other divisions are keeping it afloat. MS can afford doing so and still having money for R&D, while Sony definitely not.
Similarly with Nintendo, they do not have any additional divisions to somehow back up gaming division, so any reduction in the direct income like with a 1USD gamespass would directly affect their R&D and options for growth.

So no, Sony and Nintendo are not backed by biggest companies in the world (and thay are not on the top either), can't undercut competition with gaas like 1usd gamepass without severely undermine their abilities to grow and progress, no other divisions can cover potential loss as the gaming division ids the main one in those companies, and they do not have in-house cloud solution.
So, from this list, only Google is partially matching the query if they were, actually, in publisher business.
 
Microsoft and Sony deserve each other.... I do entirely expect Microsoft to play dirty if they can get away with it. But...

Sony: "Oh no, Microsoft's studios are favoring Xbox over Playstation!"
Also Sony: "..Do not let Microsoft's game studios get development consoles."

Like, no kidding Microsoft's game studios may favor XBox if they don't have Playstation development consoles to do Playstation game development with!
 
Back