Microsoft downplays Activision’s must-have titles while Sony defends Call of Duty’s unique market dominance in acquisition battle
The Acquisition Landscape
The $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard represents one of gaming’s largest corporate transactions, sparking intense debate between Microsoft and Sony about the true value of Activision’s game portfolio.
When Microsoft announced its intention to acquire Activision Blizzard in January 2022, the gaming industry immediately recognized the seismic implications. Activision Blizzard’s portfolio includes powerhouse franchises that have defined genres, including the record-breaking Call of Duty series, the massively popular Overwatch competitive shooter, and the mobile gaming behemoth Candy Crush Saga.
PlayStation supporters expressed immediate concern about potential platform exclusivity. Historical precedent fueled these worries—Microsoft’s previous acquisitions of studios like Bethesda resulted in previously multi-platform titles becoming Xbox exclusives. For Call of Duty fans specifically, who represent one of gaming’s most dedicated communities, the possibility of losing access to their preferred platform created significant anxiety.
Microsoft attempted to calm these concerns by confirming Call of Duty would remain available on PlayStation consoles, though this assurance failed to satisfy Sony or regulatory bodies. The acquisition now faces scrutiny from competition regulators worldwide, each examining whether the merger would substantially lessen competition in the gaming market.
Microsoft’s Strategic Argument
Microsoft’s legal strategy centers on minimizing Activision Blizzard’s perceived market dominance. In their 81-page submission to New Zealand’s Commerce Commission, Microsoft presented a carefully constructed argument questioning whether any Activision titles qualify as essential must-have games that could disadvantage competitors.
The company’s legal team asserted: “With respect to Activision Blizzard video games, there is nothing unique about the video games developed and published by Activision Blizzard that is a ‘must have’ for rival PC and console video game distributors that could give rise to a foreclosure concern.” This position reflects Microsoft’s broader regulatory strategy—convincing authorities that the acquisition won’t harm competition because alternatives exist for every Activision franchise.
From a market competition perspective, Microsoft points to successful competitors in each genre Activision dominates. For first-person shooters, they highlight EA’s Battlefield series and Ubisoft’s Tom Clancy franchises. In mobile gaming, they note the thousands of successful puzzle games competing with Candy Crush. This framing aims to demonstrate that no single Activision title holds irreplaceable market position.
Microsoft’s commitment to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation, while strategically limiting other titles to Xbox ecosystems, represents a calculated compromise. They maintain platform availability for the most contentious franchise while potentially reserving other Activision properties for exclusive deployment to strengthen Xbox’s content advantage.
Sony’s Counter-Argument
Sony presented a dramatically different assessment during Brazilian regulatory proceedings, emphasizing Call of Duty’s unique and seemingly unassailable market position. According to forum user Idas, who documented the regulatory exchange, Sony argued that no competitor could realistically challenge Call of Duty’s dominance, regardless of development resources.
Sony’s testimony highlighted that “Call of Duty stands out as a gaming category on its own” with such profound consumer loyalty that it actively influences console purchasing decisions. Their position contends that Call of Duty’s network effects—where the value of playing increases as more people play—create barriers no newcomer could overcome, even with massive financial investment.
The depth of Call of Duty’s market penetration provides Sony’s strongest argument. Industry data shows the franchise has generated over $30 billion in lifetime revenue, with each new release topping sales charts regardless of critical reception. This commercial performance, combined with its dedicated esports scene and content creator ecosystem, creates a multimedia entertainment property that transcends typical game categorization.
Sony’s concerns extend beyond Call of Duty’s immediate sales impact. They worry about the broader implications of Microsoft controlling such a foundational franchise—potential integration with Game Pass that could devalue traditional game sales, exclusive early access to content, or subtle technical advantages on Xbox platforms that gradually erode PlayStation’s market position.
These are the 25 best games to play on Xbox Series X / S
All Call of Duty games in release order
Former Xbox exec says the “console is dead” after praising PS5
Broader Industry Implications
This corporate debate transcends the immediate acquisition, revealing fundamental tensions in how platform holders value and leverage exclusive content. Microsoft’s position suggests a belief that no single franchise can dictate platform success in today’s fragmented gaming landscape, while Sony maintains that certain properties achieve such cultural penetration that they become platform-defining.
The regulatory outcome will establish important precedents for future gaming industry consolidation. If regulators accept Microsoft’s argument that no must-have titles exist, it could pave the way for further major acquisitions across the industry. Conversely, agreement with Sony’s position might trigger stricter scrutiny of future mergers involving franchises with substantial market share.
For gamers, the debate highlights evolving content access models. Microsoft’s Game Pass subscription service represents a different content distribution approach than Sony’s traditional game sales model. The Activision acquisition tests whether subscription-based ecosystems change how we define market competition and consumer choice.
Ultimately, Sony’s arguments may have limited practical impact given Microsoft’s commitment to maintain Call of Duty on PlayStation. However, the philosophical disagreement about what constitutes a must-have franchise will continue shaping industry strategies and regulatory approaches for years beyond this specific acquisition.
No reproduction without permission：SeeYouSoon Game Club » Sony responds to Microsoft claim that Activision has no “must-have” games Microsoft downplays Activision's must-have titles while Sony defends Call of Duty's unique market dominance in acquisition battle