The motion for a preliminary injunction by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prevent Microsoft from acquiring Activision Blizzard has been denied. Despite the FTC spokesperson’s concerns about competition, I firmly believe this acquisition will foster increased competition and ultimately bring positive outcomes for gamers.
It is important to note that Microsoft still faces potential challenges. The FTC filed an appeal, and the outcome of the upcoming hearing with the United Kingdom’s Competition and Market Authority on July 28 remains uncertain. Nevertheless, the recent ruling signifies a favorable development for Microsoft and suggests that the acquisition is more likely to proceed. Initially blocked due to concerns about monopolization, the impending approval will inevitably ignite intense debates on both sides, with proponents and opponents voicing their opinions on Xbox’s ownership of Activision Blizzard, particularly concerning Call of Duty.
This acquisition will likely happen, and there could be ramifications, especially on the conglomeration front. When two big companies own most games, it stints creativity and decreases player choice. Despite the obvious negatives, there are always two sides to a coin, and instead of focusing on the negative, let’s explore how the specific Activision Blizzard acquisition (not conglomeration as a whole) can be good for gaming. While the implications of this acquisition will undoubtedly reverberate throughout the gaming industry, I do not perceive it as a complete defeat for PlayStation or consumers. On the contrary, I believe that numerous positive outcomes can emerge from this deal.
Looking at Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley’s statement, she believes promises made in court will bode well for the industry. “The record evidence points to more consumer access to Call of Duty and other Activision content,” Corley said. The statement contradicts the initial fear that Call of Duty will be exclusive to Xbox. However, the head of Xbox, Phil Spencer, stated several times that Call of Duty won’t be taken away from PlayStation (at least for ten years); in line with its treatment of Minecraft, it’s not in Xbox’s interest to exclude a player base. Presumably, Call of Duty and Activision games will be added to Game Pass, which will circumvent the $70 price tag and give greater access to the games.
Additionally, Spencer promised, in writing that Call of Duty will be available for the first time with Cloud streaming. Despite the questionable quality, streaming is another opportunity for more people to play. Lastly, Spencer promised that Call of Duty will find an all-new audience with the Nintendo Switch. Contrary to belief, the acquisition won’t sequester Call of Duty. It will do the opposite: open it up to its largest audience in history.
The one worry is the 10-year contingent: Call of Duty will release on PlayStation for the next ten years; after the ten years is up, Xbox has no obligation to keep Call of Duty third-party. However, a lot can happen in 10 years, and we don’t know what the gaming landscape will look like. For all we know, Xbox won’t have a console, and instead, Game Pass will be further reaching, even available on PlayStation. Another possibility is that Xbox will keep Call of Duty third-party, knowing they’ll garner too much hate and lose too much revenue if they block off a player base. We don’t know the future, but we know the acquisition will breed competition.
The console wars (not the fan-made destroy the other side console war) have always made gaming better, forcing companies to innovate and stay one step above the competitor. Peter Moore, a former executive at Xbox said they encouraged the console wars because they were good for gaming. “If Microsoft hadn’t stuck the course after the red ring of death, gaming would be a poorer place for it,” he said. “You wouldn’t have the competition you have today, two big behemoths like Microsoft and Sony investing billions of dollars each. It’s good for gaming.”
Up until this point, PlayStation has been ahead on the console front, especially when you look at the quality and amount of exclusives they own. Within the past two years, they launched God of War Ragnarok, Final Fantasy 16, and Horizon Forbidden West. The Xbox lineup has been insufficient in quality and quantity with two of their biggest games, Halo Infinite and Redfall, not performing up to standards. However, with the acquisition of Bethesda/ZeniMax and Activision Blizzard the playing field has leveled out. If you want to compare mathematically, Xbox has about two more studios than PlayStation.
Now, as the console wars go, PlayStation has to step up its game, which ultimately means a better experience for gamers. One possibility is that PlayStation will find its Call of Duty, a stellar first-person shooter online game. The leveling playing field means that PlayStation can’t coast. Instead, it needs to experiment and innovate to stay on top.
It’s easy to see a situation and immediately think of the negative implications. Despite the negative, I am trying to see the potential good, not as a soldier of the blue or green, but as a gamer. Time will tell how this acquisition impacts the industry, and I may look like a fool, but for now, I see more consumer access and more competition; both of which have historically benefited video games.
Stay tuned at Gaming Instincts via Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook for more gaming news.
