Last week, Brazil’s antimonopoly agency made its case positively As for Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision Blizzard for about $70 billion. Your opinion is optional (the only binding opinion is that of the US, UK and EU), but You still have your weight, because it is natural that other bodies performing the same functions are interested in knowing the point of view of their colleagues. Not that they necessarily have to express themselves in the same way, but they can certainly take into account different international endorsements before expressing their opinion or making a request.
These types of procedures have rituals that are always respected The first place is heard from competitors who are somehow involved in the billing process that affects the potential performance of the contract. For example, it was also reported this week that the European antitrust watchdog asked to hear from some developers before making a decision. That’s right: it’s right and sacred to listen to as many voices as possible before making a decision.
It is wrong to assume that certain acquisitions are certain because they are Long and complicated processes. If it weren’t for that, Microsoft wouldn’t be obligated to submit thousands of pages of documents to each institution, providing responses and additional materials when necessary. If necessary, he would not assemble a dedicated team, pay millions of dollars to lawyers and experts, but only hire a few commentators and they would control the situation. In fact, we are talking about something extremely complex, which cannot be reduced to just “they know what they are doing” (of course they do, but that does not mean anything) and the result of which cannot be taken for granted because it is not guaranteed.
It is also right that those who feel threatened by the purchase should cast all their doubts on the matter, as it is their right and their interest to do so. After all, if there is a need for the approval of the competition defense authorities, it is precisely to protect all consumers, which will be understood by the companies involved in the broad sense of the reference market. Monopoly will be bad for everyone.
That said, seeing the president of a prestigious and powerful company like Sony makes a rough opposition It’s not a pretty sight. First there was a departure against Microsoft, which began with a fight in the press, then various visits to various antitrust authorities, which were accidentally revealed to everyone, including the opinions expressed. Not that Jim Ryan (we’re talking about him, of course) should be complacent. In fact, as mentioned before, you have every right to try to do everything (within the law of course) to complete the purchase. However, he can adopt a strategy that Do not poison the environment, creates public conflicts, finally, involving the players themselves, which is simply a contrast between billionaire multinational companies, whose goal is the income and happiness of shareholders, certainly not the public. In addition, this path provides a slightly altered view of the power relations of the video game market.
PlayStation is the leader among companies in the market of traditional consoles, it is fair to repeat, And ahead of Microsoft and Nintendo in various lengths (read billions of dollars) in terms of annual revenues. PS5 is currently the best-selling console of the new generation. The brand is strong, the fan base is loyal and passionate, the company’s investments are multiplying in various directions and success after success (think sitting at your computer) the future looks brighter, so why are so many afraid? Monopoly before disturbing Brazil’s antitrust?: “The main objective of CADE’s activities is to protect competition as a means of promotion. The well-being of Brazilian consumersand not to protect specific interests of specific competitors”.
Paradoxically, there is a risk of having the opposite effect than desired. First place screamed about monopoly on third place…