One Difference Between EU & CMA Led To Different Outcomes on The Microsoft Activision Deal

gameranx.com:

Considering that the EU has just cleared the Microsoft Activision deal and that the UK’s CMA ‘prevented’ it a few weeks ago, you would think that the two led to different conclusions. In fact, many of the two regulators made the same conclusions, and it was only one big sticking point that made the difference between rejection and approval.

First things first, let’s compare what they thought about the console market. Both the CMA and the EU concluded that this deal would overall not affect the console market enough to harm competition. This argument for the console theory of harm, that Sony trumpeted in their case vs the deal, was soundly rejected by both regulators.

There are some differences in how they got there. For example, the CMA concluded that Activision’s Call of Duty franchise in particular is a significant driver of revenue for Sony, and that losing access to Call of Duty would harm players as well as Sony. The EU found that Call of Duty does not have as huge a following in their region.

Of course, we should remember that this inquiry was speculatory as Microsoft stated they would not block future Call of Duty games from PlayStation. Both EU and CMA concluded that Microsoft would want to keep publishing Call of Duty on PlayStation because it would be a loss for a significant number of the game’s player base.

Interestingly enough, both regulators also came to the conclusion that they didn’t actually have to protect the Call of Duty player base from any potential moves towards exclusivity. This is because their community is not that big a fraction of the total market for video games. If you ask me, that should be a learning moment for gamers that regulators and laws don’t exist for consumers to get everything