SIX studios have made statements to UK regulators in favour of Microsoft’s proposed purchase of Activision Blizzard.
Microsoft had a deal accepted by the Call of Duty publisher to purchase the company for almost $70billion (£58billion).
Sony says that Xbox will give PlayStation an ‘inferior’ version of Call of Duty.
However, the deal is under scrutiny from regulators around the world as they try to decide whether it would create a monopoly in the gaming industry.
The main opponent to the deal is competitor Sony, which claims that the deal would destroy the competition between PlayStation and Xbox.
Six statements were delivered to UK regulators from studios in support of the deal, stating that increasing Xbox’s market share would be of benefit to developers.
While all the statements were written anonymously, they were apparently sent by studios that have experience releasing games on both platforms.
One statement claimed: “On PlayStation, we’ve found our sales growing stagnant with each release.
“This is mainly due to the fact that, despite PlayStation having the lion’s share of player numbers and console sales, that share is mainly provided to larger titles from huge publishing labels, and/or developers and publishers who are willing to spend lots of money on paid marketing within the PlayStation console.
“On Xbox, the opposite has come true over the last several years. There are numerous means of players finding your game on Xbox, including in special sections on the store, and through the Xbox Game Pass service.”
Another reads: “PlayStation needs better competition, to force the platform to up its game, and this will surely help to do that.”
Xbox shared figures with regulators that show that Xbox and PlayStation currently hold a 30/70 global market share in the gaming industry.
Despite this many claimed to see similar sales on both platforms.
Another statement hit back at Sony for the accusations that it has made about the future of gaming if the purchase goes ahead.
One statement read: “Honestly found the arguments against this acquisition to be slightly exaggerated and out of proportion.
“We are worried that actual real competition and more innovative consumer-friendly initiatives could be potentially hindered by blocking this, by potential market leaders/competitors, who might not be ready or might believe in a different strategy, or just not compelled to change their status quo on the market.”
Written by Georgina Young on behalf of GLHF.
