Ground 1: The Respondent made fundamental errors in its assessment of the Applicant's current position in cloud gaming services by failing to take account of constraints from native gaming (whereby gamers access games installed on their devices through a digital download or physical disc), undermining its SLC finding:

In its market definition a***ysis, the Respondent failed to consider potential switching to native gaming, resulting in a flawed conclusion that cloud gaming services fall in a separate product market.
Even on the Respondent's erroneous, narrow, market definition, the Respondent failed to take into account relevant out-of-market constraints from native gaming in its competitive assessment of vertical foreclosure effects.
The Respondent made fundamental errors in its calculation and assessment of market share data for cloud gaming services and as a result failed to take into account relevant considerations in its competitive assessment.

Ground 2: The Respondent erred in failing to take proper account of three long-term commercial agreements which the Applicant had entered into with cloud gaming providers for the licensing of rights to stream its games, including Activision's gaming content, post-Merger (the "Agreements") in its assessment.

Ground 3: The Respondent's finding that Activision would have been likely to make its gaming content available on cloud gaming services absent the Merger was irrational and arrived at in a procedurally unfair manner.

Ground 4: The Respondent's findings that the Applicant would have the ability and incentive to foreclose rival cloud gaming services by withholding access to Activision's gaming content post-Merger was unlawful. In particular, the Respondent's a***ysis was affected by four errors, each of which in isolation, separately, and/or cumulatively, renders the findings on ability and incentive unlawful, irrational and/or disproportionate.

The Respondent wrongly relied on evidence that so-called 'AAA' games would be important for cloud gaming services to find that Activision games in particular would hold such importance.
The Respondent failed to take account of relevant evidence regarding immediate losses from hypothetical foreclosure, which showed that the Applicant would not have an incentive to withhold access to Activision games from cloud gaming rivals.
As set out in Ground 1 and Ground 2, the Respondent wrongly failed to take account of (i) relevant out-of-market constraints and (ii) the Agreements.

Ground 5: In assessing remedial action for the SLC, the Respondent:

Erred in law by proceeding on the basis that it had a duty to impose what it described as a comprehensive remedy, thus failing to consider a range of remedies and assess their benefits and detriments in the round;
Unlawfully failed to take account of the interests of comity;
Erred in rejecting the Microsoft Cloud Remedy, which rejection was in all the circumstances disproportionate; and
Acted in breach of the Respondent's common law duty of fairness and the CMA's own remedies guidance.

The Applicant seeks the following relief from the Tribunal:
1. An order pursuant to section 120(5)(a) of the Act quashing the Decision in its entirety;
2. An order that the Respondent pays the Applicant's costs of this Application;
3. Such further or other relief as the Tribunal deems fit

cooked

fukin british

W

Gaming has gone past the need for activision blizzard

Brings the nukes out tbh, why we punishing the whole world cause one country being bitter about it

THEY SHOOK

NOW THEY TALKING ABOUT COMCAST WANTS TO BUY ACTIVISION BLIZZRD @Kr0niic

OH LORD NO

MICROSOFT PLEASE WIN

GET YOUR SONY FANBOY FRIENDS TO REALIZE THIS ISNT GOOD

playstationlifestyle.net/2023/05/31/comcast-gaming-acquisition-take-two-ea

Can’t make this s*** up

As long as Saudi’s , tencent and Comcast’s don’t buy activision blizzard lol.

Let’s go Microsoft!!

Boring 🥱🥱🥱🥱🥱 at least Microsoft can easily beat this one

🥱🥱🥱

Let’s close this s***

kronic in here talking to himself

we came a long way from niggas thinking this s*** was over

I get people hating Microsoft don't get me wrong but isn't it kind of decided whether Microsoft buys Activision Blizzard or not someone will?

Like am I naive for thinking a Tencent, Saudis or someone will invest in Activision Blizzard. Especially like an Amazon?

Microsoft is just the only one where they would buy it into a subscription plan. Most would keep the same 70 for a yearly release. Even took EA so long to get Madden into EA play. Battlefield not dropping enough. Like in 10 years are we under the belief Call of Duty will still be Call of Duty? When original take off was 2007. Crazy that its on a 17 year run but it definitely feels like the production cycles even if profit have made it where yearly game isn't always launch wise going to hit vs Warzone

Britain goated for this and the Apple stuff

CMA approves of amazon getting maps of millions of homes but doesnt approve of this! Sad!