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

Sony Says Microsoft Deal For Activision Would Have "Major Negative Implications" For Gamers

Microsoft says it makes "zero business sense" to take Call of Duty off PlayStation.

46 Comments

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has announced it will further investigate Microsoft's proposed bid to buy Activision Blizzard, and now both Microsoft and Sony have reacted to the development.

In a statement to GI.biz, a spokesperson for Sony said it "welcomes the announcement" of further scrutiny by the UK government into Microsoft's deal. The company said, should Microsoft be allowed to buy Activision Blizzard, the deal would have "major negative implications for gamers and the future of the gaming industry."

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: Introducing Gunsmith 2.0 | Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II

Sony added: "We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality gaming experience, and we appreciate the CMA’s focus on protecting gamers."

A spokesperson for Microsoft, meanwhile, referenced how a lot of discussion and debate has centered around Activision's Call of Duty series. Microsoft has pledged to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation for years to come. "It makes zero business sense for Microsoft to remove Call of Duty from PlayStation given its market leading console position," Microsoft said.

Earlier in September, the CMA said it would launch an extended investigation into the Microsoft/Activision Blizzard deal if Microsoft did not provide evidence to assuage the CMA's anti-competitive concerns within five business days. That time came and went, and now the CMA is conducting its more rigorous probe.

The CMA has said it is "concerned" that Microsoft's proposal to buy Activision Blizzard could "substantially lessen competition" for sales of game consoles, subscription services, and cloud gaming networks.

Now that the CMA's investigation has reached Phase 2, an independent panel of "experts" will look into the concerns and help make a decision about whether or not the deal should be approved.

Microsoft Gaming CEO Phil Spencer said the buyout of Activision Blizzard is not about limiting who can play its games and use its services--he claimed it's about growing.

Spencer pointed out that consoles are "not the only way that people play games." He went on to mention that mobile is the biggest and fastest-growing segment of gaming, which is why Microsoft is pushing so hard to buy Activision Blizzard and acquire its Candy Crush division.

"To reach the billions of players where they are and no matter what device they play on, we need to embrace choice. Giving players choice in how they play their games makes gaming more accessible and leads to larger, more vibrant communities of players," Spencer said. "Choice is equally important to developers. Developers benefit from having a diversity of distribution and business models for their games. Choice unlocks opportunities for innovation and enables the industry to grow."

So far, some seven months after Microsoft announced its proposal to buy Activision Blizzard, only Saudi Arabia has approved the deal. New Zealand's decision is due November 11.

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

Join the conversation
There are 46 comments about this story
46 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.

Avatar image for just1mohr
Just1MoHr

2423

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 5

Spider-man used to be enjoyed by many gamers and on many platforms before these dumb fax pulled it from us. You get what you sowed! You want COD...OK give XB SpiderHam!

Start polishing Killzone & Resistance and give it a spit shine!!!! I want to see these games back too!

Upvote • 
Avatar image for itchyflop
itchyflop

3687

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 68

User Lists: 0

@just1mohr: i hear you, however as the article states its gamers thatll loose out, especially the ones that can only afford one platform.

But yeah essentially your bang on :)

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lonewolf1044
lonewolf1044

4987

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Sony could not outbid MS, so they feel jealous and want to sabotage the deal that is all it is.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for cboye18
cboye18

4153

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 0

@lonewolf1044: Sony is anti-consumer for sure at the moment, but in this case they're also correct. Microsoft buying and owning everything on a whim can do far more damage to the gaming industry than Sony ever can.

2 • 
Avatar image for lonewolf1044
lonewolf1044

4987

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

@cboye18: I can agree on that, but Sony has to be smarter than MS and also make more money than MS. It is a doggie eat dog situation and Sony has been bragging and MS responded and flexed its muscle and Sony cries foul. Yes, both are causing damage to gaming and gaming has been damaged long before this happened. The golden age of gaming has long passed and gone. MS made some right moves and it also screwed up royally but luckily it does not put all its eggs in one basket. Sony has only one division left and that is the PS line while MS has multiple lines or divisions that keeps the money flowing. Sony will survive the buyout, and this will blow over as Sony is buying developers, but it cannot outdo MS in that arena.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for gamerboy100
gamerboy100

1080

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

The fact that this article was right next to an article about Playstation-exclusive Modern Warfare 2 content is pretty amusing.

Seriously, though. How often over the years has Sony managed to get exclusive content in their versions of multiplatform games? And how many games have they gotten exclusivity for? Yet they get mad when the shoe's on the other foot?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Activision's deal with Blizzard had major negative implications for gamers, but no one stopped that.

5 • 
Avatar image for lonewolf1044
lonewolf1044

4987

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

@Thanatos2k: Nope and look at it now, I am saddened because when they were self-publishing, they were good and well known.

2 • 
Avatar image for illegal_peanut
illegal_peanut

4211

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

P, A, R, A, N, O, I, D...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lonewolf1044
lonewolf1044

4987

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited By lonewolf1044

@illegal_peanut: Yes, Sony is worried now after all that bragging since MS flexed its financial muscle.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for poemann79
poemann79

127

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

To read how Sony thinks something is “negative to gamers” is absolutely laughable. More like “Pot meets Kettle”.

Sony has thrived on what’s negative for and too gamers for a long time. Before anyone bashes this comment let’s talk about the exclusive rights to Spider-Man games from other consoles; let’s talk the buy rights to exclude Street fighter V from consoles; let’s talk about a couple of other businesses they have bought rights too that’s hurt gamers on other consoles and oh yea by the way they’re really hurt and salty over this purchase due to the exclusive early rights Sony gets to Call of Duty for PlayStation gamers. That’s what they’re salty about is someone beat them “At their own Game”.

I’m a gaming fan I have all consoles currently and past. I’m a gaming fan so to me the exclusions and buy outs have been going on for a long time that’s not debatable at all. It’s just very hilariously funny to hear from any of these game makers to say, fight or complain or cry about what’s negative to gamers. They’re really upset cause afraid of promises being broken and a big game becoming pulled away, which won’t happen but we live in a react to fear times.

My opinion it’s pretty crappy to make exclusive exclusions on things that weren’t before and all was good.

5 • 
Avatar image for rolento25
Rolento25

2833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@poemann79: "buy rights to exclude Street fighter V" You mean them funding the game so it could be made. And it doesn't matter what you think about Sony, Because it's not good at all for gamers. None of these big buy outs are.

2 • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rolento25: MS was funding Tomb Raider and had a 1 YEAR exclusivity deal over PS and the WHOLE gaming industry was upset.

Sony locks down SF5 FOREVER on PS coz they funded the game and its no big deal?

We all know that Sony would lock down COD on PS if they could and its a hypocricy at its best how they act in public.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rolento25
Rolento25

2833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@sladakrobot: They didn't lock down SF5 FOREVER.... seeing as I own it on Steam.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@rolento25: i dont count pcs,they dont compete with consoles.
SF was for decades on Nintendo and Xbox, all of sudden its only on PS.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rolento25
Rolento25

2833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@sladakrobot:

Nintendo? SF hasn't been on Nintendo since the early 90's, and Xbox had SF4.... decades...lol, oh my.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By sladakrobot

@rolento25: why you lol?

You may not know but...

SF games were always somewhere playable on Nintendo devices (Alpha, 3rd Strike ,Capcom vs SNK etc.) namely on Gameboy,Color,Advance,Game Cube and Nintendo had of course their latest Street Fighter 4 on the 3DS!
So yes,Nintendo players could not get any version of SF5 thanks to Sony.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for MigGui
MigGui

2064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By MigGui

@rolento25: if you bought the whole "funding the game so it could be made" thing you can definitely buy MS's discourse that it is buying Activision to help games reach more people. It's the same level of bullshit.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Hellknite190
Hellknite190

220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@MigGui: Yeah, nawh, that's nowhere near on the same level. Sony pouring money into a no-name studio like Guerilla pre-killzone in order to make games for their console, is not exactly similar to buying a company that already publishes some of the worlds most popular games (on all platforms) and saying 'yeah, we're helping them get a bigger audience'

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lonewolf1044
lonewolf1044

4987

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Edited By lonewolf1044

@Hellknite190: It may stink but that is business, if one buys a company, it should have the right to dictate on how it wants to move it product and also to who it wishes. MS is in a Win-Win situation for I would not make all the game exclusive and just keep some multiplatform so I can profit off of the royalties as Sony will have to pay MS, just as MS will have to pay royalties on any of Sony games that is on their systems. Sony crying now when it was bragging in the beginning as they see MS making some moves as fear they may slip. MS has money to burn and something bigger than buy may happen real soon as I have my eyes on EA as they are thinking about selling out and that itself will make this buyout small if it occurs. Gaming industry has been damaged way before all this happened.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Hellknite190
Hellknite190

220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Hellknite190

@lonewolf1044: nawh, I totally agree with you actually. It just feels super slimey when a company acts like it's doing it for some noble reason such as 'bringing games to a wider audience', which is such a blatant lie. It's a similar deal with Microsoft and Bethesda pretending that starfield was always being developed exclusively for Xbox, which was stated conveniently right after the acquisition and despite starfield being in development way before.

I'm not saying Sony nor any other company does it either. I just don't like how these companies clearly think we're all stupid enough to believe some of the stuff that comes out their mouth

Upvote • 
Avatar image for MigGui
MigGui

2064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@Hellknite190: I’m pretty sure Capcom was quite big before Street Fighter V

Upvote • 
Avatar image for itchyflop
itchyflop

3687

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 68

User Lists: 0

@MigGui: Sony didn't buy capcom, they bought into SF series

Upvote • 
Avatar image for MigGui
MigGui

2064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@itchyflop: are you even reading the whole thread before replying? It’s the second time someone answers my reply to something while ignoring what was said before.

Someone said Sony “helped fund” SFV and made it exclusive, implying Capcom could not fund the game by itself, which is downright pathetic given the size of Capcom and the number of SF games and other franchises that Capcom released before and after SFV. I argued that if that someone believes this bullshit, they should buy MS’s bullshit of buying Activision to make games available to more people, not less. It’s the same level of bullshit with the same goal - making games from consolidated multiplat franchises available only where they want by pouring money into them

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rolento25
Rolento25

2833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@MigGui: If your going to reply, at least get some knowledge on what your talking about. No Capcom was not doing good at the time of SFV. They weren't selling hits like they are now. They were pretty much on life support at that point in time.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for MigGui
MigGui

2064

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@rolento25: If you're* going to reply, at least get some knowledge on what you're* talking about. Two of the games with most units sold by Capcom were launched just before the development of SFV (Resident Evil 6, Monster Hunter 4), and two just after (Monster Hunter World, Resident Evil 7). If Capcom could fund those titles, they could fund SFV. They could even fund SFV with the money made through the sale of those titles. They went to bed with Sony because they saw that as a business opportunity, not a floating vest. Same as every other business decision either Sony or MS did with multiple studios in the past decade.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for rolento25
Rolento25

2833

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@MigGui: Yeah... after is when they hit the golden ticket. kids.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By sladakrobot

How about protecting gamers from rising prices of games and hardware?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for pillarrocks
pillarrocks

4157

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 46

User Lists: 0

Sony needs to bring back Killzone.

2 • 
Avatar image for dushness
Dushness

1355

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

"We want to guarantee PlayStation gamers continue to have the highest quality gaming experience, and we appreciate the CMA’s focus on protecting gamers."

hypocritical how they switch that up between playstation gamers and protecting gamers..

if sony really wanted to protect all gamers they would not have their own exclusives.

5 • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Abomination713: what did MS say exactly and what did they reverted?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Hellknite190
Hellknite190

220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@sladakrobot: Starfield, of course

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By sladakrobot

@Hellknite190: MS never promised Starfield coming to PS and reverted that decision.

What ppl should do is to read again ,or listen, what MS said and stop spreading false information.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Hellknite190
Hellknite190

220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@sladakrobot: go back and look at the announcement. A company that is well known for (buggy as ****) multiplatform open releases announces a new game. No specific platforms are mentioned. It's fair to assume this is also going to be multiplatform. That developer is then bought out by a company that makes one specific console, and later announces the game to be exclusive to that console.

I'm sorry, but if you believe the lie that it was always developed as an Xbox exclusive, then you are an idiot

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By sladakrobot

@Hellknite190: I return the nice insult back...you are an idiot,sir...on top one who cant read!

Feel free to quote me where i say "Starfield was developed only for Xbox"!
Oh,no...you cant find it...you just talked out of your ass,sir!

So tell me again where MS/Xbox said Starfield is coming to PS5 and when did they reversed that decision?
Oh no,you cant find it...coz you again talk out of your ass,sir!

I havent heard you complaining when Bethesda announced Ghostwire Tokyo and Deathloop,which obviously were multiplattform projects,and Sony waved with some $$$ and locked both games away for a year?!
If you go further back,you will find enough examples where Sony bought a developer,who previously made a specific multiplattform game, and made that said game/series PS exclusive.
But,oh boy, god forbid if some other company put some elbows out.

Sony never cared about players who didnt had a PS and if that was ok, why should any PS player expect any different treatment from other console makers?

Make no mistake here,MS and Xbox are no saints but if dirty play is allowed,why not for everyone?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Hellknite190
Hellknite190

220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

@sladakrobot: Hold up. So you actually do believe that lie? Jesus christ. Yeah, you're right, my initial comment from 2 WEEKS ago was kind of irrelevant, wasn't it? That one is on me. I guess I didn't properly read it.

Anyhoo, onto the dumb shit you just said; I actually do complain about that. Quite a lot actually. Don't be so hasty to make assumptions about people. I'm not some dipshit who sings for these corporations. They want your money and don't care how low they have to stoop to milk you as hard as possible.

And I didn't call you an idiot. I said if you believed Microsoft's blatant lie, you're an idiot. Which I guess means you're exposing the fact that you do? In which case, Okay? Ahahaha

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By sladakrobot

@Hellknite190: Dont tell me you didnt called me an idiot by not telling me i am an idiot!!!


You havent provided any fact,any quote or any link which backs your comment.
Coz there is none.

Starfield probably was planned as a multiplattform project when Bethesda started working on it and after the buyout Xbox decided it should be exlusive to Xbox.

Still, Xbox never said(in public) its coming to PS(and raising their hopes) and reversed that decision(in public).
You fail to deliver a proof.

If rumors are to believe,Sony wanted also to lock down Starfield away from Xbox for a year but with the complete Zenimax buyout Xbox prevented that deal.

It could not prevent the deal on Deathloop and GW Tokyo as those deals were already settled.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Hellknite190
Hellknite190

220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Hellknite190

@sladakrobot: You're all over the place here buddy. To start, I wanna point out that I don't exactly see you citing your sources here either. But that's okay, I'll start.

Here is a list of all Sony acquisitions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Sony

Sorry, but could you point out to me any of the acquisitions of any multiplatform publishers, or hell let's even say multiplatform developers that were bought out by Sony? Pre-Bungie of course, since that was a direct response to all of the Microsoft buyouts. I'm not seeing any.

You're right, Microsoft did not say that it was coming to PlayStation, then changed their minds. I already gave you this in my last reply. I misread the original comment.

Oh, but here's the comment from Spencer saying it was announced as an Xbox exclusive. Something that is a provable lie:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/bethesda-and-microsoft-respond-to-starfield-on-ps5-questions/1100-6495706/

Oh, and here is said announcement, by the way:

https://youtu.be/JUobbpHERh8

Your turn

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Hellknite190: You claim things and dont provide facts...its up to you to back up your op comment.

Psygnosis who worked on multiplattform Demolition Derby 2 and Wipeout 2 after the initial games where also multiplattform,was bought by Sony and both IPs became exclusive to Playstation.
No more DD and Wipeout on other consoles.
Tomb Raider 1 was multiplattform and TR 2 was planned too,Sony made an exclusive deal with Crystal Dynamics and no TR2 and no TR3 on other consoles than PS.
You know how Street Fighter 5 was locked away from other consoles? A long running multplattform series?

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Hellknite190
Hellknite190

220

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By Hellknite190

@sladakrobot: Okay so, either you actually are an idiot or you're not listening. I have given you sources. I've yet to see you give any.

Furthermore two of the three examples (Crystal Dynamics, Street Fighter 5) you gave are exclusivity deals, not acquisitions. The one example you gave that actually does count by the criteria YOU gave, Psygnosis, was bought out in 1993, which is BEFORE the games you listed were developed. Sony bought them then allowed them to release those very same games on other platforms.

I'm not going to reply to you again. This is ridiculous

Edit: I went back to edit this and clarify the above paragraph, and noticed you went back and deleted chunks of your posts that I proved were just plain wrong. It's not my problem if you keep deluding yourself, just know that Phil Spencer is taking a bath with your money while you're counting coins.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sladakrobot
sladakrobot

11910

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@Hellknite190: What an idiot...giving me sources with no details and when i provide you some,you play dumb.
You know i am right(even by your standards) and still playing dumb?
There is even a Sega Saturn DD2 prototype existing and some played it.

But you are not interested in facts or providing those,especially when you claim Xbox said Starfield is coming to PS5.
Gone with the wind

Upvote • 
Avatar image for dabear
dabear

9537

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

F**K Sony.

Once this deal goes through, I'd keep CoD off of Playstation just for spite at this point.

4 • 
Avatar image for deactivated-64efdf49333c4
deactivated-64efdf49333c4

21783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 0

It also makes zero business sense to keep Elder Scrolls/Fallout/Starfield off of Playstation. Oh, wait...

Playstation is just milking it at this point now that they got a response from the UK.

4 • 
Avatar image for mooglestar
MoogleStar

3591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Gotta say, I sure am tired of this story. Just wish it would end in whoever's favor and we could move on.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for pearljam2515
PearlJam2515

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@mooglestar: I don't think this is gonna end until June 2023, scope of price and significance of games is going to drag this out. I'm sick of it as well.

2 •