Responding to the Federal Trade Commission's complaint regarding its ongoing effort to acquire Activision Blizzard, Microsoft is feigning ignorance regarding certain obvious details regarding Call of Duty. Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard has not gone smoothly, to say the least. Given the size of the acquisition, a staggering $68.7 billion, extensive analysis is expected. The FTC's decision to try and block Microsoft's acquisition effort, however, has led to an increasingly odd and complicated scenario.In early December, the FTC officially kicked off its effort to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard in the United States. This is a legal effort by the FTC to argue that the acquisition violates US law. Microsoft will be able to argue its case for why the acquisition should go through and has indicated it plans to do so. When and in what court that will happen is a more complicated matter. Nevertheless, Microsoft has already responded to the FTC's complaint, which has drawn some curious reactions. The 37-page response from Microsoft to the FTC's complaint includes a significant number of denials, admittances, and "respectful" requests to the Court. One statement, in particular, is drawing a lot of recent attention, though. The comment reads, "Microsoft avers that it lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of allegations concerning industry perceptions of Call of Duty and Call of Duty's original release date; or as to the truth of the allegations concerning Call of Duty's launch and typical release schedule and the resources and budget Activision allocates to Call of Duty, including the number of studios that work on Call of Duty." The idea is that Microsoft is being mocked for feigning ignorance regarding Call of Duty's release details and other obvious Call of Duty information. The truth of the situation is a little bit more complicated.
This section of Microsoft's response addresses a specific paragraph in the FTC's complaint, paragraph 6 of its "Nature of the Case." In this paragraph, the FTC alleges that "Activision and industry participants recognize Call of Duty as Activision's 'key product franchise.' Call of Duty was originally launched in 2003, and Activision releases new titles for the franchise on an annual basis. Activision allocates substantial resources to the franchise. As many as [REDACTED] primary development studios are devoted to it at any one time and its budget is significantly larger than other AAA titles." What's important to know is that the FTC cites this paragraph as part of its explanation for attempting to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard. It's key to the FTC's argument.
While it may seem like Microsoft is trying to muddy the waters, feigning ignorance regarding Call of Duty's release details and financials, that's clearly not the goal. Rather, Microsoft is stating to the court that what the FTC is saying here isn't clear enough to agree with or deny. Just as a few examples, Call of Duty isn't always released annually, "substantial resources" is ambiguous to a fault, multiple studios work on different games and not all on a single game, and while Call of Duty game budgets are expensive, they're not the most expensive AAA games. The FTC will have to clarify these details in front of the court.
This is just one part of Microsoft's effort to begin dismantling the FTC's legal case. If Microsoft can prove that the FTC's case is built on incorrect information and assumptions, US courts will have to allow the acquisition to go through. What the courts think of the FTC's claims and Microsoft's response won't be known for months yet. The Activision Blizzard acquisition is only going to get more complicated from here.
Source: The Verge