Brazilian Regulators: Nintendo is Able to Compete Without Activision Blizzard Games and So Can Sony - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 06 October 2022 / 5,245 Views
Brazil's Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) yesterday voted to approve Microsoft's Activision Blizzard acquisition with no restrictions.
Brazil's CADE in its report says that even if Activision Blizzard games, including Call of Duty, become exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem, Sony will still be able to compete. As an example given is that Nintendo is able to compete in the market despite the fact it does not rely on Activision Blizzard games and the Switch has yet to see a Call of Duty game released on it.
"With the acquisition of a publisher such as Activision Blizzard, and considering the (theoretical) risk of the company's content becoming exclusive to Xbox, it is likely that the eventual conclusion of the Transaction will give Microsoft a considerable competitive advantage in the segment of consoles," reads the report from Brazil's CADE.
"Even so, CADE does not see that such an advantage represents a risk of closing this market for current competitors. As already seen, Nintendo does not currently rely on any content from Activision Blizzard to compete in the market.
"In turn, Sony has several attributes - strength of the world's leading brand for more than 20 years, extensive experience in the sector, largest user base, largest installed base of consoles, robust catalog of exclusive games, partnerships with multiple third-party publishers, brand loyal consumers, etc. – which should contribute to maintaining the competitiveness of PlayStation in a possible post-Operation scenario, even in the face of possible loss of access to Activision Blizzard content.
"Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the central objective of CADE's activities is the protection of competition as a means of promoting the well-being of the Brazilian consumer, and not the defense of the particular interests of specific competitors."
The report added, "In this sense, although it is recognized that part of the users of PlayStation consoles (from Sony) could decide to migrate to Xbox in the event that Activision Blizzard games - and especially Call of Duty - become exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem, CADE does not believe that such a possibility represents, in itself, a risk to competition in the console market as a whole."
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
Finally, somebody in this whole saga said something that makes sense.
Activision blizzard games are on NS, its only cod thats not on there.
I just find it hypocritical that people are so quick to praise Microsoft for this purchase, but when Tencent or some Saudi Prince does it, there are massive backlash. Whatever worries you guys have with those entities buying out your favorite company, won't go away just because Microsoft has been good for the past couple of years. When this purchase comes through (and I know it will) it's going to get the ball rolling for even more massive takeovers like this in the future and not necessarily by just Microsoft.
Saudi and Tencent are already upping their game and PlayStation might also buy a publisher. The latter would be bad for pc as they get games later than they do now.
YES about fucking time someone said it. Nintendo has survived without Fifa before and without CoD etc. seeing any company act like they wouldnt and crying when Nintendo has shown them how its done with their own ips is beyond cringe for them companys who isnt Nintendo. Just fucking look at Nintendo Sony!!!.
Says the person that wants all games to go to PC even when they are owned by platform. holders. And complain about how they go to PC =p
Spot on.. so many insecure about the purchase. If Sony is as good as people say they are, than they will be fine.
So you are saying MS is as bad than people said since they needed to buy so many devs to even start competing?
People continue to say Xbox is 3rd and have no games sooooo they are addressing both issues.
When people did say that they were expressing their wish for new and innovative ips from Xbox Game Studios. So what does this takeover actually change about that situation? Microsoft has purchased two big publishers (including Zenimax) which were already making games for Xbox since they were multiplatform publishers.
Even the "more games coming to Game Pass" is hogwash because these games would have landed there sooner or later anyways. Players would just have to be patient a little bit longer, which seems to be quite a problem in modern days. Well, just adds the the continued devaluation of games, which is sad.
Anyways, as said, Xbox players gain nothing from these deals. Absolutely nothing. The only thing that will happen is to take away from Playstation players.
Cheering for that because the own faction "wins" is just disheartening to see...
Mods should look into this account as it really does feel like an alt..
CoD content shouldnt be locked away regardless of the duration of exclusivity. Its a 3rd party series, not a 1st party series.
GamePass has been around for years and I can’t remember any Activision games on the service. It also blocks Sony from signing more games like Starfield or Avowed as timed exclusive or gobble up exclusive content.
Not to mention, after being purchased, devs like Double Fine, Obsidian, Ninja Theory, inXile, etc, said the influx of Bill Gates cash lead to then including more stuff in their games and more time to make them better.
Xbox owners gain plenty.
Don since this deal you are really really looking disparate. Your posts make no sense at all your rambling for the sake of it whats got into you?.
i agree! sony is very good, fact
Than they and you have nothing to worry about.
Justice was served.
"SONY will be fine because Nintendo is fine."
Tbh, I'm not sure that is a very good analogy or argument to favor the acquisition. Why can Nintendo survive in this ecosystem without games like CoD? Because they have some of the biggest, most synonymous franchises in gaming...and they are all exclusive. What exclusives does SONY provide that have that kind of "Nintendo Power?
Despite that, would it still be helpful to the Nintendo ecosystem to have access to big 3rd party games such as CoD? Of course it would.
So, start pulling titles like CoD out of SONY's cap and potentially make them exclusive to MS? I can see why SONY and their consumers would have concerns with that.
Full disclosure: I do not purchase SONY products of any kind, so I have no personal interest in how this goes, to sway my opinion. Just saying that I can see how this is not a desirable outcome for them.
" What exclusives does SONY provide that have that kind of Nintendo Power?"
The Last of Us duo sold 30 million. God of War 2018 and Horizon: Zero Dawn each sold 20 million. Uncharted 4 sold 16 million. Ghost of Tsushima has sold just under 10 million. And then you have a bunch of smaller but still significant games/series like Gran Turismo, Detroit: Become Human, Death Stranding, etc.
These numbers aren't QUITE on par with Nintendo's sales of games on the Switch, but they ARE equal or better than Nintendo's sales during the 3DS and Wii U era.
God of War and Uncharted are good examples, indeed. They have stood the test of time and are a decent draw to the platform. Horizon and Last of Us are relatively young franchises but have sold very well and may prove to be a major draw to the platform in the future. But, can SONY stand on those exclusives alone, if MS were to take away CoD and other such franchises that have historically been pillars on the platform in the future?
People overstate what "Nintendo levels" are. Sometimes they sell 50 million copies of Mario Kart 8 DX, but sometimes they only sell 8 million copies of Mario Kart 8. Smash bros can sell 5 million on one console and 30 million on the next. The closest thing Nintendo has to a stable franchise is Pokemon, and even that series has seen sales increases on more popular platforms (compare the GBA and DS entries or the 3DS and Switch entries).
Point being, if you take a more complete view of how much Nintendo games sell, Sony's first party lineup this past decade certainly qualifies.
Let me ask another question. If Sony has Nintendo-tier series in terms of sales and still relies on Activision Blizzard games to succeed, do they deserve to succeed?
could not of said it any better! Sony has made some huge purchases and timed exclusives, it was not a big deal till they were out purchased.
Actually they're wrong. Activision blizzard games like Crash and Spyro are on Switch. The fact that they don't know that tells me they didn't do much research.
Yea but nintendo can survive with just their exclusives alone.. They don't need 3rd party to do well
Nintendo serves a completely different audience. Their games are primarily aimed at a younger audience and their exclusive franchises are much more well known. Also Nintendo does suffer when they experience a lack of 3rd party support, just look at the Wii U. Just because they don't need CoD doesn't mean the Switch hasn't benefited greatly from other 3rd party games.
Wii u failed not because of third party. That failure lies on Nintendo for not marketing it well. Most people thought wii u was an extension to the wii rather then a new console. Plus the specs were piss poor in comparison.
If u look at a the sales between nintendo first party vs third party a d which pushed their console sales more and I can guarantee u 99 percent comes from their first party.
Sony has alot of historic franchise dating ps1 days. They just need to revive them. They probaby have more of the iconic franchises then Nintendo themselves
I don't entirely disagree, but I think third party sales on Switch definitely count for more than 1% of their sales. If I had to guess it's more like a 90/10 split. 10% may not seem like much, but that's a significant chunk of sales. Plus even if you are right about those numbers, I still think it's a major stretch to say it would be the same deal for Sony. Sony may have a lot of franchises, but none of them are as influential as Pokemon or Mario. Very few (if any) of them are as influential as Zelda. Sony may be able to adapt, but I think it's fairly obvious 3rd party means more to them than it does Nintendo. A staggering 86% of Sony's sales are third party. As it stands, they'd go bankrupt if they relied on only first party sales.
The problem is that Sony based their whole case on the importance of COD, setting it apart as a deal-breaker
MS has been underwhelming for years and have been terrible running their own studios. They couldn’t compete with Sony’s flowing quality of games so the compete by buying out publishers!!!! What a joke!!!!
Jim Ryan and Sony have to accept it and move on.
What they can do is Start buying other publishers like MS and continue developing great games
Indeed, I wish Sony brought Capcom and Squareenix then things would be fair!
Wonder how much corrupt corp m$ paid them to back up this pathetic anti-consumer/anti-competitive/monopolistic take over?
It's disgusting that corrupt m$ continue to get away with this!
All those propagandists ( read: Liars) who said Xbox buying Activision/Blizzard is "monopolistic", keep being stamped on by the truth and reality.
Still no apology ???? That says much more about yourself than about this acquisition.
I don't believe I've expressed any opinion on this matter, but if I had, I wouldn't feel particularly compelled to apologize. Monopoly is defined differently in each country, and the definition is usually complex. The EU for instance has a stricter definition than the US. There's a reason M&A lawyers make a ton of money.
I'll accept that according to Brazil's definition, this would not qualify as a monopoly. Doesn't mean that there is not a reasonable case it may be a monopoly in other places, although again, I have no idea what the relevant standard is beyond a very limited knowledge of US law. Also doesn't mean that anyone is a liar or a propogandist. Just had a different opinion on the matter.
There is absolutely no case to be made that the Microsoft purchase of Activision Blizzard creates a monopoly. That's literally not possible, since a bunch of other companies exist in the gaming industry. Nobody is making that claim.
What some people are saying, is that it would concentrate too much power in the hands of Microsoft, giving them an inappropriate amount of control of the market. I don't agree with that claim either, but it is a much more reasonable take than "monopoly".
Brazilian Regulators: Nintendo is Able to Compete Without Activision Blizzard Games and So Can Sony.
also Brazilian Regulators: water is wet.
Next time they ask for pay raise I want to see their boss saying "some people can live with 200USD per month in wage, so can you".
... but wouldn't a raise have more to do with what value he brings to the company than what other people can live on?
Sure. And MS buying Acti would have to do with removing value from competitor. So saying "hey someone can live without this" to validate something like this purchase when in other situations shows just how silly it is as defense. Being able to live or do without something doesn't make it any better to lose that something.
O_o...
But... anti-trust law is not about whether or not it would be better for Sony if the deal didn't go through. It's literally about whether Sony could survive and compete if the deal went through. That's literally the whole point.
Yes I do know, which have nothing to do with your point or what Chicho said.
People dont come to Nintendo for COD.
They might as well just said Toyoto.
Will help you on this...
Pagani Zonda doesn't need 7k USD cars to compete so Toyota could buy all car manufacturers and Volkswagen should still be able to compete.
Great for microsoft , bad for ps and xbox fans. Still a bull deal. Something that has been multiplat and widely popular for years should remain so. Laziness on their part. If they know they can't compete against sony/nintendo, they should just accept defeat and retire.
Nothing said CoDs going exclusive. If anything, it means special treatment towards Sonys versions will be shared across other platform versions like the MW2 beta which was exclusive to PS.
Yep so bad for Ms gamers since they no longer need to worry about any Sony exclusive contend in CoD and having to wait or not getting that contend anymore. Pitty the poor Ms fans..
Essay Pro