UK Regulator Sides With Microsoft Over Call of Duty on PlayStation Concerns

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has now sided with Microsoft over concerns the software giant could remove Call of Duty from PlayStation if its proposed Activision Blizzard deal is approved. From a report: The regulator still has concerns about the deal's impact on the cloud gaming market and will complete its investigation by the end of April. "Having considered the additional evidence provided, we have now provisionally concluded that the merger will not result in a substantial lessening of competition in console gaming services because the cost to Microsoft of withholding Call of Duty from PlayStation would outweigh any gains from taking such action," says Martin Coleman, chair of the independent panel of experts conducting the CMA's investigation. The CMA had originally provisionally concluded that a Microsoft strategy to withhold Call of Duty from PlayStation would be profitable. Microsoft wasn't happy with that conclusion and publicly criticized the regulator's math earlier this month, arguing that the CMA's financial modeling was flawed.

Well then

[rsilvergun]

I guess the checks must have cleared.

I think the only rich country on earth in the running for "Most Corrupt" with America is the UK. I guess on paper China is technically wealthy, but their people get so little of it I don't count them. Then again maybe I shouldn't count America for the same reason.

Point is, shit be fucked.

Re:

[bloodhawk]

Sounds more like Sony's bounced. Those corrupt assholes have been feeding the regulators BS

Incredibly obtuse

[sethmeisterg]

They willfully ignore Microsoft's past monopolistic practices and willingness to forgive short term revenue for longer term platform market share capture. Such a stupid decision from a bunch of idiots.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is they are not a monopoly in gaming, they are not even in the top 5 so they do not and should not get to consider that. Basically it would be economic suicide to undermine COD to try and gain marketshare, it would lose them billions. secondly it is hard to argue even if that did that that it is unfair as that is EXACTLY what Sony already do.

Re:

[nzkbuk]

The reality is they are not a monopoly in gaming, they are not even in the top 5.

Activision Blizzard have been in the top 10 (by revenue) for I don't know how long and are regularly in the top 5. If you want a citation1 [totalsportal.com], citation2 [alltopeverything.com], citation3 [tbsnews.net] and other industry analysts also agree that the microsoft blizzard would see big changes [newzoo.com].

Re:

[bloodhawk]

your links are comparing apples and oranges. when talking about gaming revenue in this aspect you do not include the console hardware which doesn't make anyone any money except nintendo.

When do I get Mario on xbox then?

[sarren1901]

Seriously, I don't see why all of a sudden exclusive titles aren't okay. We've had exclusivity in gaming since it started. Wanted to play Mario,buy Nintendo. Want to play Sonic? Buy Sega. Enjoy the Final Fantasy? Playstation it is!

Not seeing why this matters at all. At least not all of a sudden. I can see demanding all software be platform neutral, though that would drive up the price of software quite a bit, but we've never had that so why is it so important now, for this specific title?

Does this mean COD