Microsoft Boss Continues Tirade Against UK Market Regulator, Following Blocking of Activision Blizzard Takeover

[T0@st]

Brad Smith, vice chair and president at Microsoft has been doing the rounds with the UK press, and the incensed executive continues to express anger about the nation's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) preventing his company's proposed buyout of Activision Blizzard. The UK antitrust watchdog yesterday blocked the deal on the grounds that a merging of (already massive) games publishers could result in a potentially catastrophic skew in Microsoft's favor within the fast growing cloud gaming market sector. The CMA's latest findings suggest that the takeover would "lead to reduced innovation and less choice for UK gamers over the years to come." This verdict comes as a major blow to Microsoft's gaming division following a number of victories - including Japan's competition regulator approving the takeover bid late last month. The company's gaming division (Xbox Game Studios) is awaiting verdicts from the EU commission and US Federal Trade Commission.

In a business-themed podcast interview (conducted by the BBC), Microsoft boss Brad Smith declared that the UK government's blocking of the merger represented a bad move "for Britain" in terms of attracting international business. Microsoft has been operating in country for four decades, and Smith casts doubt on that relationship - in his opinion - the mega corporation has experienced its "darkest day" in the region: "It does more than shake our confidence in the future of the opportunity to grow a technology business in Britain than we've ever confronted before. People are shocked, people are disappointed, and people's confidence in technology in the UK has been severely shaken." Smith insists that fledgling companies should look elsewhere to start a base of operations: "There's a clear message here - the European Union is a more attractive place to start a business than the United Kingdom."



According to the BBC - a UK government spokesman countered Mr Smith's claims about the CMA's decision being bad for Britain: "Those sorts of claims are not borne out by the facts." The spokesperson outlines that the UK government is more than willing to co-operate with Microsoft going forward - the UK video games market is expected to double in size within the next decade, and the spokesperson theorizes that Team Green is set to benefit well from growth the sector. Microsoft's official statement from yesterday (issued in reaction to the regulator's verdict) contained a veiled threat to curb its investment in Britain - with that context Mr Smith stated that the UK government "needs to look hard at the role of the CMA and the regulatory structure." The UK CMA's chief executive, Sarah Cardell, has also made comments to news outlets and today stated that she does not agree with the views expressed by Microsoft's leader: "I think this decision shows actually how important it is to support competition in the UK and that the UK is absolutely open for business. We want to create an environment where a whole host of different companies can compete effectively, can grow and innovate."

Industry experts have found it odd that the UK CMA had granted provisional approval of Microsoft's deal (across a broader context) last month, yet the smaller issue of cloud gaming turned out to be the main sticking point within the final judgement. Ultimately, Sony's leadership is likely celebrating yesterday's verdict - their PlayStation organization has long protested that a successful buyout of Activision Blizzard would result in an unfair market skew in Microsoft's direction. The rival games publishers have been fighting fierce over the Call of Duty franchise's future and other platform exclusives.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Vayra86]

Oh god. Please EU, follow up on the British wisdom and block this too.

The arrogance. The gall. Wow

 

[ZoneDymo]

Oh god. Please EU, follow up on the British wisdom and block this too.

The arrogance. The gall. Wow

British wisdom? sounds like a contradictio in terminis

anywho, what is the big problem with MS buying up activision/blizzard anyway? what real problem comes from that other then the company maybe needing to better their ways because now it would reflect poorly on MS.

Reading stuff like this always amazes me, these people are so childish, so emotional and dramatic, instead of spouting nonsense...how about we skip all that and talk about what its really about.....

I have zero clue what brittain's CMA is on about...cloud gaming? what? if MS was buying the now defunct Google Stadia you might have a point but Activision/Blizzard? what does that have to do with Cloud gaming?
And less innovation and choice for UK gamers? what? how? and since when does blizzard or activision stand for innovation? they release cod time and time again and diablo and remade Overwatch....such innovation....imagine having to miss all of that thought provoking content....

 

[Vayra86]

British wisdom? sounds like a contradictio in terminis

anywho, what is the big problem with MS buying up activision/blizzard anyway? what real problem comes from that other then the company maybe needing to better their ways because now it would reflect poorly on MS.

Consolidation under big publishers has never brought us better games, just weaker sequels and gutter trash IP. Unless you have some examples to disprove that... big corporate and unique great content just do not match.

As for the later questions... innovation is hampered when an entity is so influential it can simply push everything else out of the market. This is not about what MS or Activision produces, it is about how inviting the market is for new players.

 

[Shihab]

I realize that one word posts are considered low quality on these forums, but honestly, one can't think of any comment on this tantrum other than "cope!"

 

[64K]

The arrogance. The gall. Wow

The real MS

British wisdom? sounds like a contradictio in terminis

anywho, what is the big problem with MS buying up activision/blizzard anyway? what real problem comes from that other then the company maybe needing to better their ways because now it would reflect poorly on MS.

Because MS is attempting to monopolize a huge sector of AAA gaming. They have already said that they are not going to stop with buying Activision Blizzard. They have other AAA Publishers in their sights as well. They might eventually wall off games to their own store only which is a shitty store compared to Steam.

MS is bad news for gaming imo.

 

[Lycanwolfen]

This is the Microsoft way. If you cannot get the games you want for the platform you sell buy the companies that make the games. MS is like that in IT. They Had Msn messager no body liked it and used skype instead. Microsoft wanted the market and would do anything to get it so they bought skype. Ruined the platform in my mind. Then they wanted people to develop apps for there systems for free. Bought out git.hub. Microsofts motto is No competition.

 

[Camm]

Everyone has their own view (probably mostly coloured by their favourite under telly box), but can I say it is pretty galling that the CMA blocked this based on potential future competition in cloud gaming, a speculative market at best.

 

[Lycanwolfen]

I really did not microsoft in the gaming market . When Xbox first came out, PSX, Sega, Nintento owned the market. And some great games was made for each platform. Everyone was playing fair. Then MS started their good ole ruin the competition corner the market and screw what people think.

 

[olymind1]

I can barely name any MS game which i liked in the last decade. They have so much money, yet they can't make new studios and hire talent to make games?
Age of Empires 1-2, Fable1, Dungeon Siege1, maybe Gears Tactics, and maaaaybe State of Decays. But this list is really scarce. Well, Wasteland 3 was also made by inXile bought by MS, so thats a plus.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

" Smith insists that fledgling companies should look elsewhere to start a base of operations: "There's a clear message here - the European Union is a more attractive place to start a business than the United Kingdom."

Wtaf is this guy on Microsoft are so far away from a fledgling company.

Ms need to drag this tool to the Kirb and fff him off, total fool.

Crying because he can't have his toy's.

Fffff Ms they were too big once before and they're getting too big again.

I'll return the mental vitreous on MS and until this tit is in a dole que not a penny of mine will MS get.

 

[dyonoctis]

This is the Microsoft way. If you cannot get the games you want for the platform you sell buy the companies that make the games. MS is like that in IT. They Had Msn messager no body liked it and used skype instead. Microsoft wanted the market and would do anything to get it so they bought skype. Ruined the platform in my mind. Then they wanted people to develop apps for there systems for free. Bought out git.hub. Microsofts motto is No competition.

Nobody liked Msn? Msn reached a cult status in the early 2000s, MSN/Windows live messenger dying was one of Microsoft biggest blunders, they failed to anticipate where the instant chat market was heading.

I really did not microsoft in the gaming market . When Xbox first came out, PSX, Sega, Nintento owned the market. And some great games was made for each platform. Everyone was playing fair. Then MS started their good ole ruin the competition corner the market and screw what people think.

MS/Xbox did not single handily ruined the gaming market. Games generating waaay more money/requiring more money to be made is what made the whole market feel much more commercially driven. Making a AAA game is a risk, if it doesn't perform well, it's millions of dollars down the drain. THQ going bankrupt, EA slaying their in-house studios wasn't because of Microsoft. They are certainly not a perfect company, but they are far from being alone in the "bad deeds". Even PlayStation was born from a betrayal from Nintendo . While Sony won't outright buy square Enix, they do pay them for timed exclusivity.

I can barely name any MS game which i liked in the last decade. They have so much money, yet they can't make new studios and hire talent to make games?
Age of Empires 1-2, Fable1, Dungeon Siege1, maybe Gears Tactics, and maaaaybe State of Decays. But this list is really scarce. Well, Wasteland 3 was also made by inXile bought by MS, so thats a plus.

From a business point of view, in 2023 that's a big gamble to make. MS has been skittish about making new IPs, their latest attempt (scalebound) was outright cancelled. Even industry veterans are having a challenging time making something that performs well without playing into nostalgia. It's cowardly yes, but a public company need to please the shareholders.

 

[InVasMani]

Diversification is the code word for monopoly of many of today's multi-billion dollar corporations.

 

[ChettManly]

Why does the UK even get a say in two US corporations merging?

Microsoft should tell them they are going to continue the merger and if they don't like it they will remove every investment, every job from the UK. Furthermore they will disable all Microsoft services and updates to Microsoft products for UK users.

Then the US Government should threaten sanctions if the UK attempts to meddle in the affairs of US corporations again!

 

[InVasMani]

It's one larger corporation that UK and other countries corporations would have to compete against is the most obvious reason.

 

[ChettManly]

That is true of every country. Does all 200+ countries have to sign off on every merger now? Why does UK get to have a say on this, but not Korea or Japan or Brazil or Australia...

Who do they think they are?

 

[ZoneDymo]

The real MS



Because MS is attempting to monopolize a huge sector of AAA gaming. They have already said that they are not going to stop with buying Activision Blizzard. They have other AAA Publishers in their sights as well. They might eventually wall off games to their own store only which is a shitty store compared to Steam.

MS is bad news for gaming imo.

And what if MS store gets better, who cares if its Valve or MS selling the games?

I guess a problem for me is that I dont attach any value at all of the term "AAA", who gets to decide what that is and what adhears to it and what that is worth, the most interesting games are not what is considered tripple A.

CoD has essentially been the same game for a decade or 2 now....all tripple A? ok? and? im not impressed by CoD.
What does it ultimately matter if there is another company higher up that owns that?

What if Disney owned Microsoft and Microsoft owned Activision and Activision owned Nightdive and Nightdive made a remake of Sin....how does that ultimately matter for the end consumer?

 

[InVasMani]

Countries for a long while have been involved in mergers this isn't new or unique to Microsoft and while it's a US owned company they do business and operate in other countries as well. That's the way the world operates. I mean in reverse China's Netease started a lawsuit against Blizzard for pulling out of China. Hell look at the ARM merger that didn't go thru there were several countries involved surrounding that situation.

 

[ZoneDymo]

Consolidation under big publishers has never brought us better games, just weaker sequels and gutter trash IP. Unless you have some examples to disprove that... big corporate and unique great content just do not match.

As for the later questions... innovation is hampered when an entity is so influential it can simply push everything else out of the market. This is not about what MS or Activision produces, it is about how inviting the market is for new players.

Well ill flip that around, how has it affected anything the other way around?
I mean sure EA is notorious for buying up beloved Developer studios and then basically axing the games (bullfrog) but in this case what on earth does MS gain by buying up A/B and then have them not bring out their super popular titles?

EA also published stuff that people were hyped for like Jarny or whatever and No Man's Sky which would have not seen the light of day without a publisher financing it.
Its more about how the big company acts that determines if it matches with unique great content and imo MS does not seem like a company that even cares about what those under it release, as long as it sells and makes them money.

as for the later answer, I mean is that really a thing though? we live in a time of Internet and independent Journalists, if some Indie company actually comes up with something amazing, it will be made known to the public, nothing an MS can really do about that.
Look at that recent police shooter game, everyone is talking about it because it looked so realistic, but its just an indie dev so again, I dont think anyone really suffers from MS buying a shitty company like Activision/Blizzard and it certainly has zero to do with freaking cloud gaming.

We cannot equate this with messed up situations in Murica where some local airline company buys up all the little players so you can only fly with their overpriced shitty service airline.

 

[Zunexxx]

Countries for a long while have been involved in mergers this isn't new or unique to Microsoft and while it's a US owned company they do business and operate in other countries as well. That's the way the world operates. I mean in reverse China's Netease started a lawsuit against Blizzard for pulling out of China. Hell look at the ARM merger that didn't go thru there were several countries involved surrounding that situation.

Netease has a different issue. WOW in the Chinese market was solely operated by Netease. When Activision said they will pull out, that would mean no support for Netease and no more WOW for the Chinese market. Netease paid a large sum to buy sole rights to run WOW and now they will lose everything, that's why they sued Activision.

 

[64K]

And what if MS store gets better, who cares if its Valve or MS selling the games?

I guess a problem for me is that I dont attach any value at all of the term "AAA", who gets to decide what that is and what adhears to it and what that is worth, the most interesting games are not what is considered tripple A.

CoD has essentially been the same game for a decade or 2 now....all tripple A? ok? and? im not impressed by CoD.
What does it ultimately matter if there is another company higher up that owns that?

What if Disney owned Microsoft and Microsoft owned Activision and Activision owned Nightdive and Nightdive made a remake of Sin....how does that ultimately matter for the end consumer?

My gripes against the MS store are legit. I have bought 2 games from them and experienced the same thing with both. During download both hung about 3/4 through and never restarted DL. I had to erase the DL folders and start all over. In addition you can't open the game folders to see what MS put in there because MS locks the folders even if you have Administrative Privileges. Who the hell does that except MS?

 

[Vayra86]

Well ill flip that around, how has it affected anything the other way around?
I mean sure EA is notorious for buying up beloved Developer studios and then basically axing the games (bullfrog) but in this case what on earth does MS gain by buying up A/B and then have them not bring out their super popular titles?

EA also published stuff that people were hyped for like Jarny or whatever and No Man's Sky which would have not seen the light of day without a publisher financing it.
Its more about how the big company acts that determines if it matches with unique great content and imo MS does not seem like a company that even cares about what those under it release, as long as it sells and makes them money.

as for the later answer, I mean is that really a thing though? we live in a time of Internet and independent Journalists, if some Indie company actually comes up with something amazing, it will be made known to the public, nothing an MS can really do about that.
Look at that recent police shooter game, everyone is talking about it because it looked so realistic, but its just an indie dev so again, I dont think anyone really suffers from MS buying a shitty company like Activision/Blizzard and it certainly has zero to do with freaking cloud gaming.

We cannot equate this with messed up situations in Murica where some local airline company buys up all the little players so you can only fly with their overpriced shitty service airline.

Oh please...
We have a rich history of companies sitting on a release of X or Y so they can make more money with last-year's Z.
We have a history of Google and Apple buying start-ups to add to their semi-walled gardens. Start ups with great innovative ideas. You're right, you get the ideas, still, but now disguised as a Google or Apple product.

You mention EA, and 'sure is notorious for'... exactly. Bioware is one very good example of how its corporate control quickly destroyed a talented studio. EA buried more studios than the economy did by now I reckon.

Even just the way releases are going to be timed is in MS hands, so they can maximize exposure for all their filler content. Activision no longer competes with whatever shooter MS was going to make either, so MS might just not make one right now, they have CoD.

Do you need more examples? I can fill three pages without blinking if you need it. If you have the slightest grasp of how business works, you can too, its not hard...

 

[BSim500]

And what if MS store gets better, who cares if its Valve or MS selling the games?

Given Microsoft's long history of platform lock-in / proprietary API's, I'd say plenty of Mac / Linux / Steam Deck gamers definitely want Valve, GOG, etc, selling the games far more than a MS Store exclusive. Likewise Skyrim : UWP Windows Store Exclusive Edition would be literally unmoddable. No thank you.

 

[Imouto]

Why does the UK even get a say in two US corporations merging?

Microsoft should tell them they are going to continue the merger and if they don't like it they will remove every investment, every job from the UK. Furthermore they will disable all Microsoft services and updates to Microsoft products for UK users.

Then the US Government should threaten sanctions if the UK attempts to meddle in the affairs of US corporations again!

Unhinged much?

Even the FTC is against the buyout. Maybe the USA should threaten actions against the USA.

If there's anything that scares these corporations shitless is the market figuring out how to replace them. There's also the little bit of countries not liking little bitches challenging their power.

So yeah, any of these "suggestions" would backfire so hard it's hilarious just thinking about it.

 

[Frick]

Consolidation under big publishers has never brought us better games, just weaker sequels and gutter trash IP. Unless you have some examples to disprove that... big corporate and unique great content just do not match.

Pentiment would not have existed if not for MS money. Psychonauts 2 would be a much lesser game if not for MS money.

I mean yeah in a perfect world all devs are doing well on their own and capitalism doesn't exist and hasn't sucked the blood out of everything but that is not the reality we live in. Are we barreling towards the Games as a Service wasteland and yet another damned remake of Bioshock and Skyrim Again? Yes, and this block will not do a thing to stop that. The only thing stopping it is revolution. In a way we're already there with AAA gaming. It's all doomed anyway, but so far MS has done good so I say embrace the athropy.