GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Microsoft's Response To CMA Questions Details Potential Remedies And More

Microsoft recently filed responses to the CMA's questions, and they show the remedies that the company has proposed to the UK regulator.

By Steven T. Wright on March 21, 2023 at 7:45AM PDT

Over the past few weeks, Microsoft and other parties have filed documents with the UK's Competition and Markets Authority as the regulator determines its ruling on the proposed Microsoft-Activision Blizzard merger. On March 21, Microsoft filed supplemental answers to the regulator's questions, which include potential remedies based around the Call of Duty series--a key part of the proceedings. The CMA recently moved its deadline to make its final decision on the deal from April 25 to May 22.

The document begins with Microsoft reiterating that it does not want to make Call of Duty exclusive to the Xbox platform. Microsoft proposes two possible remedies to the CMA's concerns: a publishing agreement between Sony and Microsoft that would keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for 10 years, and a cloud gaming deal that would give worldwide licenses to consumers and cloud gaming providers to stream Activision PC games that they own. The filing notes that major cloud gaming company Nvidia supports this deal.

Click To Unmute

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.

This video has an invalid file format.

00:00:00

Sorry, but you can't access this content!

Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Best Xbox Games Of 2022

Many of the details of Microsoft and Sony's proposed deals are redacted from the public document. However, the filing does state that Microsoft would apply this remedy to the PS4, PS5, and any "successor consoles." Microsoft further states that it has "no incentive, or indeed ability, to take Call of Duty exclusive." The Xbox owner also says that the remedy will give PlayStation parity on release date, in terms of "content, features, upgrades, quality, and playability."

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

View Comments (10)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II

Join the conversation

There are 10 comments about this story

10 Comments RefreshSorted By

GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Please Log In to post.

59

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

"The CMA recently moved its deadline to make its final decision on the deal from April 25 to May 22."

Incorrect. The European Commission (not the CMA) moved their deadline in response to Microsoft offering additional remedies.

Upvote • 2 years ago

6051

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 139

User Lists: 0

only sony is butt hurt by this.

2 • 2 years ago

163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@nintendians: Why would they be? Sony’s problem isn’t just the Call of Duty franchise per say, it’s more in the realm of “everyone let Microsoft buy Bethesda with no scorn or backlash because they felt it was a one time thing. Now they purchase another big studio, what’s keeping them from trying to buy another big studio a la Ubisoft.” It’ll start to become a arms race and that’s not good for us consumers?

Upvote • 2 years ago

6051

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 139

User Lists: 0

@Viper13579: we would have move to other platforms and i doubt you buy a playstation just for cod only.

Upvote • 2 years ago

1468

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By theduckofdeath

@Viper13579: If MS tried to buy Activision Blizzard King first, Sony would have chirped up just the same.

They don't like that CoD on Playstation would directly fund a competitor. Also, they are put in a difficult position with CoD on Game Pass and then being offered CoD on PS Plus. They don't want CoD on either. Sony is stubbornly old school and wants to force unit sales through their platform.

Put on the spot in front of consumers, Sony would have to consider putting CoD PS Plus and paying one of ABK/MS's payment options. Game Pass offers different models, according to Spencer (frontloaded, upfront plus usage, usage). Now it is in reverse and paid to a competitor.

Sony wants no part of what that would cost or and won't even do it with their own games until years after launch. They pay to block 3rd parties from the competition, not improve their own streaming/pay-to-play offering. The next CoD won't launch into Game Pass even if the deal closes soon.

Upvote • 2 years ago

317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@theduckofdeath: Exactly, all of this. Anyone who thinks Sony is fighting this for anything other than self-serving reasons is crazy. They don’t care about competition unless it’s directly costing them.

Upvote • 2 years ago

163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Viper13579

@theduckofdeath: I don’t think so. If Microsoft bought Activision first and offered Sony a 15-20 year deal for COD, they probably wouldn’t have mind. Remember, the head of Microsoft has said that they would be stupid to make COD exclusive. So a 20 year deal wouldn’t matter right?

And you are looking at this from a biased window. Sony has no choice but to push unit sales. Even if they improved their PSPlus option, it wouldn’t matter. So can only offer it on a PlayStation. MS is a computer software company first and foremost. They have a footprint in the computer industry. So it was easy for them to create a game streaming platform on PCs. Sony is an electronic products company that became what they are. So they rely on game sales and unit sales. It works. They’re still the #1 video game console seller in the world, by a long shot.

I could care less because I luckily own all three systems. But let’s be real. MS is only doing this because they suck at exclusives. I was listening to a video game podcast and MS is in danger of not making it to the next console cycle. That’s why they’re doing such drastic things. They were destroyed in sales by Sony and Nintendo during the Xbox One cycle. It was a good machine, but games is what drives console sales.

Upvote • 2 years ago

317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Feral411

@Viper13579: I’m sorry but I think that’s the most ridiculous thing to say, that if MS went for Activision first that Sony wouldn’t have cared.

The significant amount of sales that COD generates is just too much to ignore and allow one of the competitors to control when you look at the deal through a business lens.

Also, MS would likely never offer a contract for that long as there is just too many unforeseeable factors to consider that far in advance when it comes to technology. I was surprised with the 10-12 year deal they offered already and thought that was generous.

Think about it this way. If 19 years from now there is still competing gaming systems and say PS is somehow difficult to develop for now MS would be forced to put in the effort because of a deal they signed 19 years prior

2 • 2 years ago

163

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@feral411: You’re not understanding what I’m saying. If MS would have went for Activision first and offered a 15-20 year deal for COD, then Sony wouldn’t care as much. And you say that a 20 year deal isn’t reasonable but I thought MS said that making COD exclusive is a stupid idea, so why should they care? Everyone is not stupid. MS is only really doing this is because they can’t hold a candle in the exclusive market and that’s where you make most of your money.

And you’re already forgetting that MS basically went back on their word that they wasn’t going to make any big games from Bethesda exclusive and we see how that turned out. Sony has never done a complete major studio and made them exclusive. Some particular major games (SpiderMan, FFXVI) yes. I repeat, this is a desperate move for MS because they are getting destroyed again in this current console cycle.

Upvote • 2 years ago

317

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@Viper13579: they never once explicitly stated they are not making any Bethesda games exclusive. They said they would decide on a game by game basis. There’s a big difference there between what they said about Bethesda’s stuff and that they are outright saying they aren’t making COD exclusive.

And I understand what you were saying completely. I still disagree, even if they had went to buy Activision first, because of the juggernaut COD is, Sony would have done the same as they are doing now.

Also there’s a big difference between just not making a game exclusive and contractually obligating your company to making the game for 20 years for another system. These are businesses and it’s not often in business you’ll find someone making a 20 year deal with their direct competitor.

Upvote • 2 years ago

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment