Report: US FTC 'Likely' To File Lawsuit Against Xbox's Activision Blizzard Deal

@Dezzy70 It's the US Federal Trade Commission. It's a huge deal if true. They're the USA's antitrust law commission who deals with consumer protection.(edit)

I still expect it to go through eventually, but hope there are sensible sanctions in place to protect gamers across all platforms.

@grumpypotato Could not disagree more. Nadella is turning Microsoft around from a hated company to one people at least like if not love.

Financially after 14 years of going sideways under Ballmer where the stock price remained around $40 a share Nadella has turned it around. Since he took over in 2014 he has taken that to around $250 a share. That's HUGE.

Regardless a terrier like Jobs or Gates wouldn't work half so well in today's far more antitrust commission led world. We live in a different age now and Microsoft have done exceptionally well at getting ahead of the curve on this by being proactive. Outside Xbox here they have recently avoided most of the anti-trust scrutiny that other big-tech has been under in the last 5+ years.

As for Phil Spencer. I think he's a great figurehead for Xbox, but I think they need to replace some of the leadership roles below him in terms of getting out games on time and on budget. Too many slip and too many average releases. Should do better.

PARTLY true, yes most big tech have increased. But the devil is in the details most not nearly by so much. Of some of the giants:

• Microsoft: Apr 2014 = $40 v today = $245 (x6.1)
• Sony: Apr 2014 = $17 v today = $81 (x4.8)
• Facebook: Apr 2014 = $60 v today = $110 (x1.8)
• Google: Apr 2014 = $27 v today = $97 (x3.6)
• Samsung: Apr 2014 = $670 v today = $1150 (x1.7)

Out of the tech giants I looked at only Apple has done better:
Apple Apr 2014 = $19 v today = $149 (x7.8) but they are a huge outlier in part as they were still coming from a relatively low position.

A x6.1 share change over his reign of a super-corp... that is GREAT leadership success.

@pip_muzz Honestly I think there are many people more worried about what Microsoft might do with a $70billion war chest if the deal doesn't go through than if it does. I'm one. While I don't want it ABK is the least worst option

@raftos Completely agree, that was in part what I meant by many are worried what MS would do with a $70bn war chest if this deal doesn't go through. Better the devil you know sometimes.

@Sol4ris Really??? I've seen that posted here on PX, PS, Eurogamer, Social Media and discussed with friends. See Windows Central article above also with the same view.

@Dezzy70 Honestly this is all a bit sad. Can we go one article without posting that there is Xbox Stock in the UK? We know, doesn't change the fact that Xbox has made huge gains this generation. Give it a rest.

@S1ayeR74 Yes COVID happened and MANY games have been delayed, I do have sympathy for that. But somehow every other major publisher has still had a steady stream of games coming through. Why are Microsoft the outlier?

This isn't a new thing either though it's been going on best part of a decade. Every single year of XBox One's lifecycle "next year will be Microsoft's year" They have to deliver at some point. But this gen alone:

• 2020 was especially rough with no launch games.
• 2021 was better they had a few titles and they were almost all high-quality but not enough to offset 2020 & 2022.
• 2022 Great that Grounded and Pentiment were made and released but where are the first party system sellers? Those ain't it.

At worst they have to be on last warning. Deliver big in 2023 or go.

I've been saying exactly this for weeks now, @Sebatrox. In fact, I just wrote the same on Push. If Sony manages to prevent this deal (basically on the basis of CoD), then Microsoft should just buy it as an exclusive title for the next 10 years. They can afford to do so, and I would imagine that there is pretty much nothing that Sony could do about it. Sony buy exclusives all the time, so what can't Xbox...?

Honestly, Xbox is doing this to themselves. That legal document that leaked yesterday was a bad look. You’d think Xbox’s lawyers could frame the merger better and broker better deals to ensure it goes through, but it seems to get worse and worse. I was initially supportive of the merger, but became neutral on it, and am slowly becoming against it. That last document was embarrassing.

@Grumblevolcano Ori and the Will of the Wisps was my favourite Xbox One game, it's brilliant... but it's hardly a system seller, especially for next gen consoles. Nor was Minecraft Dungeons (which was multi-platform anyway), Wasteland Remastered or 3 (also on PS4).

Bleeding Edge, Tell me Why, Battletoads, Bards Tale: Re (also PS4) are all OK but pretty niche games. (Flight Sim I had included in 2021 as that's when it released on Xbox.)

You see the problem right? Where are the games that shout consumers should pick Xbox over PlayStation. Especially around launch, THIS is where Microsoft is failing.

Thankfully Game Pass, and some great pro-consumer choices, are keeping them in the game by offering great games every month at a very reasonable price. It's the main USP of Xbox right now and has gained them a little more market share. But to REALLY compete they need some first, or third, party excusive system sellers.

@JetmanUK It's good advice but will take a long time to bear fruit.

Besides they are already investing heavily in their own studios but it's just not that easy. You can't just throw money at it. Ask 343, Google or Amazon. And they are already paying for many (smaller) exclusives on Game Pass. But yes agree they need AAA system sellers.

Buying existing studios or paying for third party games are the only ways to do that quickly. If plan A fails, perhaps they will move to plan B.

I do find it ridiculous that people here, and elsewhere, frame this as MS vs Sony, partly due to their own bias, and partly due to the way these sites present it to stir up the interest.

This is very much MS vs consumers, and anyone thinking that these statutory bodies are dancing to anyone's tune are living in a childish land of make believe. That Sony gets invited to comment is only to be expected given the business metrics, but they are certainly not the only ones.

I have zero respect for corp warriors, that's pathetic behaviour no matter which side of the equation you are on.

@Kaloudz
Sadly, you are correct - there is more toxicity at Push than here. Its why I like to get my news here when I can , despite push posting many more articles each day. I also believe that Sammy has encouraged it, although he swears he hasn't

I know what would upset Sony much more than Microsoft buying Activision, and that would be them buying the likes of Square Enix and Capcom. If Sony manage to prevent this deal going through, if I were Microsoft, I'd heading straight to those two Developers/Publishers, as well as seeking a 10 year Call of Duty exclusivity deal. All Sony are trying to do is protect their own business, which is absolutely fair enough, but they are not playing nice, and I would seek to play by their rules if they do scupper the deal. $68 billion can buy a lot of smaller developers and exclusive deals...

@Kaloudz Sorry mate, yeah Sammy is editor there - Frasers equivalent.

@Fiendish-Beaver If they buy smaller developers it wont attract the attention of the monopolies and mergers legislators so that would indeed be an OK strategy to adopt.
I'm not sure why you think 'Sony are not being nice' the only multiplat developer they have bought was Bungie and they stated even before they bought them that would keep destiny multi platform. Other than that, and stating that losing an ip which has over 80 million sales, the majority on PS, would be harmful, I'm not sure if I could point to anything else that was 'not being nice'. Of course people who only want to hear one side of an argument will become upset if someone makes another case, but most of us here are adults and should be able to take in both points of view, even if we are firmly in one camp or another.
I had thought this deal would go through. I don't think its great for the industry, but I wanted to see the Activision/ Blizzard studios signed up to more respectful and decent working practices, which I believe would happen under Microsoft.

As I wont buy anything from this group on principle, a buy out would allow me to play diablo 4, which I'd love to play, but will never play unless the studio is under more benign ownership, so personally its a bit of bummer if it doesn't go through

The issue I have, @Titntin, and what I consider not 'playing nice', is the hypocrisy of their statements to the various Investigators. They claim they cannot compete without CoD, but seriously, who buys a PlayStation to play CoD? You buy a PlayStation to play what are effectively their AAAA (when compared to any other game) home grown exclusives.

Sony claim that Microsoft are attempting to foreclose Sony. Seriously? Microsoft has absolutely no intention of doing so, and even after the acquisition goes through, Sony will still be the biggest gaming company, and Microsoft will only move up to third. It's simply not possible to foreclose a company from a less dominant position. You need to be the market leader to be capable of doing that, and that position is held by Sony, and will remain so after the acquisition goes through.

Sony complain that should the deal go through, they are concerned that they won't have parity when it comes to CoD. Well, firstly, Microsoft have offered parity for the next 5 years (that may have now increased to 10 in line with their offer to keep the game on the PlayStation for at least the next 10 years (and does anyone actually believe Sony would have made a similar offer were roles reversed?)). However, secondly, and deeply hypocritical, there hasn't been parity with CoD for many years now, because Sony have paid to have content exclusive to the PlayStation since the PS4 era began.

Sony have stated that they are concerned for Gamers that should this deal go through, that because of the positive effect that this would have on the Xbox, that the price of the Xbox would increase, as would the price of games. Seriously? This is precisely what Sony has just done. Why? Because they can! They are the market leaders, and they know that demand won't be affected when they increase the prices of games and consoles. Then they have the gall to suggest that Microsoft might do the same?

In doing what Sony are, they are attempting to protect their market dominance. They want to remain the market leader for this and future generations. I absolutely understand that, and there is nothing wrong with attempting to do so. It is all about the bottom line, after all. However, it is the duplicity and hypocrisy of their statements that gets me. Anyone that genuinely believes that Sony are trying to protect gamers is deluding themselves. Sony are out for themselves (as is Microsoft) and that is absolutely understandable; you go into business to make money, after all, and so whilst you could easily think that Sony are being altruistic in their efforts to stop the deal, in reality, that is far, far from the truth.

There are other examples of the hypocrisy, but I don't want to labour the point. Not 'playing nice' refers to the manner in which Sony are attempting to scupper the deal...

@Fiendish-Beaver Well thanks for expanding your viewpoint.
I don't believe its balanced at all and I think you have a poor understanding of what motivates the majority of gamers to make the purchasing decisions they do ('who buys a playstation to play COD - Absolutely loads of people), but I don't intend to go over and over the same blind arguments here.
If you genuinely believe these three agencies are dancing to any corps tune rather than doing the important job they are funded to do, then I feel genuinely sorry for you, but I don't know you and I'll just shake my head and move on.
I do appreciate that you have shared your thoughts with me though, so thanks for that. Have a great day.

@Fiendish-Beaver Interesting points, and I agree Sony have been hypocritical, I don't approve of that. But so have Microsoft - i'll come back to that. But first a few crucial corrections.

Who buys a PlayStation to play CoD?
Frankly loads of people who only buy a few games a year including annual COD, GTA (when ones comes out every 5-10 years) maybe Fortnite and FIFA (insert sports game of choice). Hell I know several people who basically ONLY play Warzone almost every day. We here on Pure Xbox are the minority.

If COD only came out on one platform, or was massively favourable to one platform, it WOULD influence their choice of platform.

Microsoft have offered parity for the next 5 years
No they haven't. They said they wouldn't take it away from PlayStation, but that isn't parity. If it was included in Game Pass at no added cost, vs £70 on PlayStation that gives Microsoft a HUGE advantage amongst the masses.

As for Microsoft. They have also been duplicitous playing down the importance of COD by using Playstation polls, Twitter traffic and lower Metacrtitic Scores all to try and pretend COD isn't vitally important to the gaming landscape right now. I know it's a bit of meme game round here but the simple facts don't lie. Even last year when it had a 'bad year for COD' the 2021 entry Vanguard was the #1 selling game of the year. And you know what was #2? Black Ops Cold War. There is no denying just how giant and influential COD is.

They tried to compare PS+ (Essential) subscribers to Game Pass. As we know that isn't the right comparison here. PS+ Extra & Premium is the same multi-game subscription tier to compare. PS+ (Essential) is akin to Xbox Live Gold.

They've also used Nintendo as a comparison. As we all well know Nintendo do their own thing and appeal to a different demographic.

Like you I could go on and on but also don't want to belabour the point.

TLDR: As you rightly said it's just business but they are BOTH at it. Frankly it's comical how they are both trying to downplay how important they are.

Okay, I'll except a few people will only play Call of Duty on the PlayStation, @themightyant, but how many are we speaking? The numbers will honestly be pretty insignificant, truth be told, and if they ONLY played CoD then they would still be able to do so because it would still be on the PlayStation.

You are mistaken regarding the parity, because this is what Microsoft said:

In full, Microsoft's new statement reads: "In January, we provided a signed agreement to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years beyond the current Sony contract, an offer that goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements." This means future Call of Duty titles won't have any content exclusive to Microsoft platforms, and they'll release on the same day and date on Sony machines.

The above was taken from an article on this very site.

Absolutely agree that they are both 'at it', but I think it fair to say that Microsoft are being forced into making statements in order to defend themselves and the acquisition from the statements being made by Sony. Neither party is covering themselves in glory here, but Sony are slinging as much mud as they can in the hope that some of it sticks, and they appear to be being successful, at least to some extent. It's not a good look for either company, but I would say that Sony are the ones that look particularly desperate, and exceptionally hypocritical as well...

I accept that there will be some that buy a PlayStation just to play CoD, @Titntin, but my point was more about the numbers that do so. I would be very surprised if the percentage of PlayStation gamers that bought a PlayStation to ONLY play Call of Duty was very high at all. People are persuaded to buy a PlayStation because of its superb first-party offerings, and the fact that it is the market leader, much more than because it has CoD.

As for these 'three agencies' that you mention, I assume that you are referring to the various regulators. I never said anything about them, nor any comment regarding companies dancing. I absolutely agree that their work is important, and I truly hope that they are totally unbiased in their findings. The only one that thus far has shown any potential bias towards Sony is the UK regulators, who have stated that they are concerned regarding the impact this will have on Sony, which is not what they are supposed to be doing. Their investigations are supposed to establish what affect the acquisition will have on the industry, not on one particular company within that industry. As for the tweet from the European guy, and his 'my PlayStation' comment, that is a complete load of tosh as he has no involvement in the European regulators investigation or decision making. That was a lot of fuss over nothing.

Ultimately, there is no need to feel sorry for me. I own all three consoles (only bought a Switch last week, so new to that party), and a high-end gaming PC. I'm covered no matter what the outcome. That's not to say I don't have any bias, we all do, no matter what a protestations, but I do believe in the right to make a comment, and to have an opinion, no matter whether others might disagree with it.

@Dezzy70 Microsoft are delivering value for money. GamePass is superb and in the middle of a cost of living crisis, I can’t see why anyone would ignore Xbox. As for Xbox not advertising, I see maybe 5 or 6 adverts a day in the UK on Sky channels , sports channels mostly so not sure what you are watching?
Sony ate the company who are against the gamer this time round. In all honesty, Nintendo must be sat laughing loudest. They have an underpowered system still selling like mad after 5 years! Concentrate on the games and that’s all that matters. Xbox is focusing on giving all gamers a good deal. This deal doesn’t kill off PlayStation. Nothing of the sort.

@Would_you_kindly You do know that Push Square and Pure Xbox and Nintendo Life are all the same people? You do know that don’t you? Same set up? Often same people covering the stuff? You do know that? Please tell me you know that. 😂

@Sol4ris Sony have got more salt than the sea. They do the same and always have. Let’s see the deal done and move on. Nothing will change. Chill out.

@S1ayeR74 When all platforms are doing well , gamers are the best off! Competition breeds quality. Always been the case. The 90’s saw the console wars and I for one had hoped they had faded away by now.
Sony has bossed the last few years - 10 years - but surely it doesn’t matter? This deal should go through. It won’t change anything. CoD will still be on PS5. The only issue here is that Jim Ryan has lost sight of ‘for the players.’ The best thing that PlayStation can do is get rid of Ryan. He's just a moaner and ha lost the way.

@themightyant The country that elected Donald Trump has a trust commission. Wow. That's actually hilarious.

@Dezzy70 Xbox offers better value for money right now than any other. Other than Nintendo’s own IP’s, there is zero reason to own one anymore. But, the sales still rise and rise. That's Nintendo putting Switch in-your-face at the right times every time.
As for PlayStation... Adverts everywhere. Sales still up but a lack of games. Xbox are aiming for a market where you can play their games on any and every system. Until people realise the obvious, I do despair that people will just keep arguing about not a lot.

@somnambulance The deal will go through. And if it doesn't we all know what Sony will do. They will try and do a deal themselves. That's going to happen. They all need to get on with games![

@Dezzy70 I know people with both or all 3. This isn't the old days of console wars. The term next gen is no longer valid. When we went from 8bit to 16bit etc, the leap was impressive. All we are seeing now is upgrades.
Xbox doesn't need to change at all. People are playing Xbox on PC, Tablets, phones. It's an ecosystem. If you don't understand Xbox’s market now, you never will.

@Dezzy70 Okay - so in UK, my 2 local Argos have had Xbox Series X and S in stock for months. Trouble is, as soon as they come in, they sell-out. PS5’s? Rarely in stock because they cant get the supplies. You can't sell something you don't have.
You have interviewed all these stores then? They are all terrified of having stock they can't sell? If they cant sell them after 6 weeks they return them. That's how it works and has done for decades. The Wii U sat on shelves for months but stores returned them. It happens. But Xbox isn't at that point, not even close!
Why do you think we now have cross play? Because people have different consoles. Xbox has been a huge champion of cross play because they want games on as many platforms as possible! That's why.
Play on what you want. Enjoy gaming!

@Fiendish-Beaver if you read that statement carefully nothing is stopping them from putting it Day 1 on Game Pass THAT is the point. “Feature and content parity” refers to no different content or modes on Xbox it does not mean it couldn’t come out on Game Pass which would give a significant advantage to Xbox vs £70 on PlayStation. That isn’t parity. Their words are deliberately tricksy here.

My main argument wasn’t that there are loads of people ONLY playing Call of Duty, though there are some, more that a lot of gamers do play COD and this potential lack of parity could lead to many changing platform. It’s entirely understandable from a business perspective why Sony are trying to block or slow this. That’s natural, as is MS responding. It’s just expected business from both really that people here are blowing out of proportion.

But what a lot of people seem to be missing it that the antitrust commissions are specifically asking for reasons why the deal shouldn’t go ahead, that’s part of the process. As Sony are likely the ones to come off worst they are obviously leading the charge. Not sure what else people would expect them to do…

@Sol4ris where to start on Bungie.

1) that’s whataboutism at its finest.

2) Regardless Sony’s acquisition of Bungie was pretty unique in that it was specifically set up so that Bungie retains full creative control and publishing independence so THEY, not Sony, decide where their games are published. And Bungie’s statement said they intend to keep being multi-platform. Source: Forbes

3) I’m not defending OR agreeing with a Sony’s stance, I’ve pointed out several flaws and hypocritical elements of it in recent days. Just playing devils advocate here and showing the flaws in Microsoft’s arguments too.

@Sol4ris the big difference is that Xbox have said they will make EVERY first party game included on their service and then go and buy up whole PUBLISHERS, dozens of studios, including many long time beloved IP. That is a super aggressive move that ONLY someone with Microsoft’s almost limitless wealth can do. This is why antitrust is rightly looking into this deal.

Can you genuinely not see why investigating this deal is the correct thing to do? its a classic example of precisely what these commissions were set up to scrutinise. To stop large companies taking advantage of their advantageous positions and gaining an unfair advantage.

Those are the base facts vs a hypothetical question on a company that has basically never made any AAA first party game available day 1 on their service. (I guess you could argue Destruction Allstars perhaps). Hence I called whataboutism. It wasn’t about not answering your question but about that question distracting from the main point at hand.

Regardless let’s go back to your initial hypothetical suggestion. If Sony were to make a game included on their Service v £70 on Xbox. Yes Microsoft would be at a disadvantage on that one game like Sony is now. But I’m genuinely not sure what your point is here? No one is supporting that stance. Yes it would be two faced of them. What’s your point?

But surely you can see the absurdity of arguing a hypothetical that goes against all the practises of a company’s policy so far, versus the exact business model that is happening right now.

As to Bungie my understanding, and why it got so much Press on this precise matter because it is a relatively unique deal, in that Sony cannot just change their mind and override that. It’s written into their deal that Bungie not Sony have control. Bungie have a separate board that decides what’s best for Bungie. It ruffled a few Pony feathers at the time. “Why would Sony spend $3.5bn and NOT have exclusive control?” Blah blah.

It’s clear Sony bought them for other reasons, not exclusives but expertise. And perhaps to prevent others companies taking away the biggest remaining FPS that wasn’t owned by the opposition.

Whilst I get your point regarding parity, @themightyant, I don't believe it to be correct. Microsoft have offered parity for the game, meaning exactly the same game will be available on the Xbox and the PlayStation on exactly the same day. Plus it needs to be borne in mind that that is not the case at present, as Sony have secured the superior version every year for close to a decade now, and often earlier access too, so this is actually a fairly big offer on the part of Microsoft who will actually own the game, but not make that beneficial (as such) to the Xbox community.

So, what does this mean? It means that those playing on the PlayStation will still be able to buy the game for £70/$70 each year (for the next 10 years apparently) just as they do right now. The same applies to those on the Xbox. It will be exactly the same game, released at the same time, for the same price. That is parity, and is what is being offered. So effectively, absolutely nothing changes for those playing the game on a PlayStation, other than them having the superior version of the game.

Now, I get that you see the game releasing on the Game Pass as not offering parity, but in terms of the actual game, parity is what is on offer, and in all honesty, because Sony is the market leader, I truly do not believe that they would offer Microsoft the same deal, were the situation reversed.

The game will undoubtedly release on the Game Pass. I believe this is the main reason that Microsoft are purchasing ABK. Also undoubtable, is the fact that this will, to some extent, hit Sony's bottom line. Some people will leave the Sony platform and find a new home on the Xbox, but I would be surprised if a substantial number of people completely leave PlayStation because of the other fantastic first party games that Sony offer, many of which are just too enticing for people to leave. What is more likely, is that people will either buy an Xbox or PC on which to play, whilst also retaining their PlayStation.

Sony's bottom line will be hit. I don't think anyone can deny that. However, they are the market leader by some margin. I believe they last said that they had 45 million active users, whereas Sony have just revealed that the Xbox Game Pass has 29 million subscribers. You would need to see a substantial number of people (and by that I mean multiple millions) move from PlayStation to the Xbox for that gap to be significantly closed, and that just isn't going to happen. There aren't enough players on the PlayStation who solely play CoD for the scales to be tipped in favour of the Xbox. However, I do believe you will see a possibly significant rise in the sale of Xbox consoles, particularly the Series S, which will then be used as a secondary console (primarily for CoD), which in turn will be to the benefit of the Xbox. So I am not denying that this will be good for the Xbox, not so good for the PlayStation, and potentially very good for the Switch, but ultimately, this is precisely why Microsoft are attempting to buy ABK.

@Fiendish-Beaver Some excellent points. Sorry it will be a long response but as Mark Twain once wrote “I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one.” Apologies.

Regardless always nice to have an adult back and forth discussion on deeper gaming matters.

1) I agree parity of content is better and acknowledge PS has that additional content now. Though it's worth noting Xbox had these exclusive COD features first during the Xbox 360 era (I bought Modern Warfare on 360 not PS3 for this reason) and Sony only have them now because Xbox let their licensing agreement expire without renewing it. That's just business, both were able to pay for this right, and both did in their time. That simply isn't the same as buying the competition outright and preventing the opposition ever doing so.

I also don't see Xbox offering content parity as a big offer on Microsofts part, more I see it as an absolute condition of the deal going through in the first place. It never surprised me that within hours of the ABK announcement Phil Spencer stated he had spoken to Sony leadership to reassure them COD would stay on PS and would offer content parity. This wasn't primarily for our benefit, though it was a factor, court of public opinion and all, this mostly was for regulators. They were wisely getting ahead of the curve knowing that this would be an absolute condition of the deal succeeding.

While I agree Sony wouldn't WANT to offer the same if the tables were turned I think Sony would HAVE to offer the same if the tables were turned. It is basically a non-negotiable for this deal to succeed.

That said I agree they didn't have to go as far as they did, 10 years + content parity, but again I see that more as trying to appease regulators to attempt to smooth any blockages ahead of time. They are only doing what they have to in order to get the deal through. That's just smart business.

But if it was up to them it would be another Bethesda, systems with Game Pass only.

@Fiendish-Beaver 2) I also agree not a lot will change for PlayStation users in the short term going forward in terms of COD being available.

ABK is a HUGE publisher, around 10,000 (edit) employees, and the giant elephant in the room no one seems to be talking about is what about all the other non-COD games those studios DO make or COULD make. Will those be Xbox only titles going forward, like Bethesda? For comparison ALL of Sony's PlayStation Studios have around 4,000 developers (note devs not employees).

COD is used as the figurehead of the argument but ABK is much bigger than COD.

That said I actually think ABK is the least worst option from a Sony gamers point of view and things could be a lot worse if Microsoft had spent $70bn elsewhere. I had a longer discussion on this over on Eurogamer the other day.

I actually think Bethesda was a bigger blow to PS gamers than losing ABK... in the short term at least.

@Fiendish-Beaver 3) "I believe they last said that they had 45 million active users (it's actually) 48 million PS+ subscribers, whereas Sony have just revealed that the Xbox Game Pass has 29 million subscribers." I saw this in the Microsoft rebuttal but it's frankly nonsense not an apples to apples comparison that is quite DELIBERATELY deceptive.

Yes Sony have more PS+ subscribers, but most will be at the lowest tier, but that is akin to Xbox Live Gold NOT Game Pass.

While Sony don't supply precise breakdown figures for PS+ top two tiers and while they don't precisely match up, comparing like for like Game Pass & Ultimate vs PS+ Extra & Premium then the tables turn and Xbox is the market leader of game library subscription services. And rightly so, they have a better offering. (it's why i've been subbed to GP for 5+ years and only occasionally did to PS Now.)

But why is that a problem, especially when considering antitrust?

4) I understand your argument that you can pay £70 on both consoles for the game and that is parity. But I disagree. One is also offering it for £7.99 (a month) via Game Pass. That is undercutting the competition considerably and for many consumers that will influence your choice of which console to buy.

E.g. My currently recommendation to friends who game a little, or for their kids, is to get an Xbox with Game Pass. Basically unless you are tied to PlayStation through friends, an existing library, or specific IP then Xbox, via Game Pass, is offering undeniably better value.

This is where it gets conflicted.

While I personally LOVE this as an Xbox consumer, I also understand that this is only possible with Microsoft's almost limitless backing. They are putting themselves in a position of strength, with Game Pass, that almost no one else can emulate without billions in startup cash. That will stifle competition in the space.

Yes Sony are one of the few that MAYBE could, along with a couple of other big-tech giants compete. But basically no one else can now enter this game library subscription space. This is PRECISELY the sort of thing antitrust is meant to prevent: making offers that seem pro-consumer but are actually limiting others in the space.

As I said i'm conflicted between personal gain (I love Game Pass, it offers amazing value) and what I think is better for the industry as a whole.

Lastly we also don't know the long term effects of library style subscription services like Game Pass on gaming. That is another loooong and theoretical argument so I won't go into detail here, but it's worth noting. Just because things look rosy now doesn't mean the waves it creates now won't have destructive effects down the line.

Your point on subscribers is fully understood, @themightyant, but that is not what I was getting at. I wasn't comparing subscribers to subscription services. The point I was getting at is that the install base is far larger on the PlayStation than it is on the Xbox, and thus were a few thousand, or even a million gamers to migrate to the Xbox, the PlayStation would still have the largest install base. I was using the figures provided by Sony as an example of disparity.

As for having CoD on the Game Pass influencing the console choice of gamers, that is exactly what Microsoft are hoping for. It is also precisely why Sony pay for all the bells and whistles to be added to CoD, and why they are desperately trying to stop this deal. They are the dominate force in gaming, and they want to remain so. Perfectly understandable, but let's be fair about this, if it's okay for Sony to do it, surely the same can be said of Microsoft? I would also not be at all surprised if, were Sony be successful in stopping this deal, they would seek to put CoD on their own version of Game Pass. They already pay a likely fortune to get all the extras they already do, and with their clear good relations with ABK, I can see them attempting to do so (bear in mind that they did not have their own subscription service when they last negotiated the contracts with ABK).

As for whether or not other companies could begin the subscription service, I would dispute this. The Xbox Game Pass is now a beast, but it started out like a relative wet fart. It has taken Xbox 5 years to grow it to its current standard. Simply looking at Sony's version and saying they simply cannot compete is utterly erroneous. In 5 years time, Sony will likely have an equally compelling, if not superior service to the Game Pass. By then many of it's huge franchises will be fully available on their service, it'll be the place to go for Final Fantasy and other Eastern gems, and I would not be at all surprised if Sony start to include their first party games on to the service on the day of release. Given time, it will be a fantastic service. Indeed, in 5 years, you may see something offered by Tencent or the like too.

In relation to the offer of parity, I think there is a strong likelihood of you being right; it is not necessarily something that Xbox wanted to do, but felt compelled to do in order to get the deal across the line.

I also agree entirely that it is nice to have an adult conversation. Having seen some of the comments on this site and elsewhere, it is clear that that cannot always be relied upon...

I absolutely agree with you that buying ABK is not the worst that Xbox could have done, @themightyant. Indeed, if they do lose out on this deal, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Xbox decide to go after a smaller Developer/Publisher, that would likely cost a great deal less. The likes of Capcom and Square Enix come immediately to mind. Not because I think this would hurt PlayStation gamers the most, though it undoubtedly will, but because both have huge franchises that would benefit the Xbox ecosystem. So if this deal does fall through (and at the moment, who knows which way the pendulum will swing?) and Xbox are still keen to splash the cash, there are a great deal of other companies they could see to buy instead. Heck, they might even be inclined to buy a majority stake in FromSoft, which would really put the cat among the pigeons...

@Fiendish-Beaver "if it's okay for Sony to do it, surely the same can be said of Microsoft" It absolutely IS ok for Microsoft to do the same. But doing the same is paying for some exclusivity bonus, as they did for years. What isn't the same is buying up whole giant publishers. That is new and imho not good for gaming long term and it's rightly being looked into by antitrust commission. Perhaps if we had a benevolent dictator in charge this could work, but with business, corporations and capitalism I only see bad things; a more fractured landscape and less choice for consumers long term. Too many walled gardens like TV streaming is right now.

Not convinced by Sony trying to get COD on PS+ if the deal fell through. Have you seen how many sales those games get and how much they make? That would be a LOT of money to offset, can't see that being worth it. While I don't know what Sony pay for their competitive advantage what it actually amounts to is pretty minor bonuses that cost ABK very little, I can't imagine it being more than a tiny fraction of what they would pay to get the whole game on PS+ i.e. Not at all likely to happen.

I didn't say Sony can't compete with Game Pass, I said OTHER companies outside Big-tech or similar wealth can't join in anymore due to the obscenely high buy in cost. Most industries have small sparky services coming in with bright new ideas, mixing things up. Gaming doesn't really and the rise of gaming library subscription services close this even more. This is something antitrust may look at, though they probably won't. That's not a Microsoft issue, it's an industry issue.

I would love to see Sony have an equally compelling, if not superior service to the Game Pass in 5 years. But I don't see that happening any time soon, as it goes against their whole company profile which is slow, low risk, iteration. And that is understandable PlayStation is their golden goose that kept them afloat when almost all the rest of the company was struggling. It would take a visionary new direction for this to happen which I can't see happening until they are behind and possibly it's too late.

As for FromSoft I read Sony purchasing 14.09% of them, as well as further investment and partnership with their parent company Kadokawa Corp. as an attempt to stave this off. (Tencent has another 16+%). The last thing the industry needs is more top end multi-platform games going first party and only released on one platform.

Anyway it's getting to the end of the day and i'm off to play God of War shortly before the football. Happy gaming.

You are doubtless right, @themightyant. I was just throwing stuff out there as to what Sony might do in the event that they were successful in preventing the deal. I doubt they would put CoD on their service, but I'd be surprised if they didn't explore the option. Imagine if they put it on the their top tier; just how many more top end subscribers would they get that were new to the platform, and how many more would upgrade the tier that they are already subscribed to? I get that it is a golden goose for Sony, but they only get a percentage of the sales, but the boost to their platform by putting it on their Games service would be simply incredible. Ultimately, because of the fantastic first party content that Sony offers, I think more people would be inclined to abandon the Xbox and head over to the PlayStation, than the other way round.

Anyway, I'm about to do exactly the same. I think I must be approaching the end of Ragnarök, and then I'll be watching the footie later too...

Come on England!!!