The Case for Xbox's Activision Blizzard Acquisition: The Trial so Far, and What we Should Expect

    Over a year ago, when Microsoft first announced their acquisition of Activision Blizzard, I wrote an article about what studio Microsoft might acquire next. I definitely jumped the gun, because not too long after, their deal was blocked by multiple parties including the FTC. For a long time, people said that there was no way Microsoft would be able to pull off keeping their acquisition. They said that the FTC has never been beat but recently it seems as though Microsoft might actually have a good chance of winning the case. 

    Phil Spencer has already testified and had many good points as to why the deal should go through. Today was the third day of the trial and Jim Ryan, head of PlayStation, took the stand. The FTC was counting on Ryan to back up their case, but it seems that he contradicted them in a lot of ways. The FTC has built a large part of their case on saying that Xbox won't keep Call of Duty on PlayStation and that PlayStation won't be able to survive without it. Jim Ryan talked like he wasn't concerned about exclusivity but that he was more worried about Call of Duty being on Xbox Game Pass. He said that it would be bad for PlayStation fans, however it really seems like it would just be bad for PlayStation. 

    Jim Ryan also stated that "All game devs dislike GamePass and it’s a destructive service” However, there are numerous publishers and game devs that say otherwise. His case only gets worse from there. He was asked whether or not he would make Activision content exclusive to PlayStation if he had the opportunity, but said he preferred not to answer because it was a hypothetical. Even after he was told he had to answer, he still didn't actually answer the question. Obviously, we can all assume that means that he would make that content exclusive. He also refused to acknowledge that PlayStation has had cloud gaming since 2014, he insisted that they've only had it since PS plus. We already know that's completely false.

    Jim Ryan also said that the Nintendo Switch is not a competitor to the PlayStation. However, they built their case for acquiring Bungee on the fact that both Xbox and Nintendo are competitors, Xbox even called them out on that. The FTC also brought in their expert economist who was supposed to show the numbers on what would happen if Call of Duty was on Xbox. However he refused to answer any questions clearly or give yes or no answers to most of the questions. He even mentioned that Call of Duty isn't essential for consoles, which shatters the FTC's case.

    The judge posed many good questions like, why isn't PC included in the conversation, and when the FTC said it was too expensive for gamers, she snapped back, saying that it was worth the price considering the multitude of uses it has. The judge even mentioned that having Call of Duty on Xbox Game Pass could be better for consumers because it gives them more options. The judge also posed the question, “Cloud and subscriptions seem to be just a different way of paying for games. So why are we saying it’s a different market?” The FTC just couldn't explain it.

    In short, it seems that the FTC and Jim Ryan have no real case here. They've shown that their priority isn't with appeasing gamers but with keeping PlayStation on top of the food chain. The acquisition is not anti-competitive, Microsoft has already said time and time again that they will keep Call of Duty on PlayStation. It's also not anti-consumer because having Activision Blizzard games on Xbox Game Pass only gives consumers more options other than just paying Seventy dollars for a Call of Duty game. I would be very shocked if Xbox loses this case. I think that myself and most gamers everywhere are just hoping that Xbox will win this, and that the FTC is finally put in their place.