Tom Warren

It feels like Microsoft’s witness, Dr. Bailey, offered an easy to understand argument for Judge Corley. Dr. Lee’s testimony wasn’t very clear for us to follow and I think that’s coming through with Judge Corley’s questioning here. But this is a complicated case with both sides arguing about different data to try and prove their points.

“What’s tricky about this case is that you have to look at the specific data for each game,” he argues. Judge Corley wants to know what it is about Call of Duty that they’d abandon their console of choice and buy an Xbox? FTC:

The FTC argues they choices are forgo the game or maybe play it on another console they might own if they happen to have an Xbox or they’ll have to go buy an Xbox. “This results in a share shift to Xbox,” says the FTC.

Judge Corley wants to know how you calculate the number of people would switch to Xbox, so Microsoft would have the economic incentive to foreclose:

Judge Corley references that 62 percent of all PlayStation owners don’t play Call of Duty at all. “They’re not going to miss it, the foreclosure won’t affect them.”

Judge Corley: How do you decide that Call of Duty is so important to them?

The FTC struggles to respond and references Jim Ryan’s testimony instead of answering the question related to Dr. Lee’s testimony. “That’s not what I asked,” says Judge Corley.

Judge Corley is really fixated on Call of Duty here. Another FTC lawyer has stepped in to try and help explain.

Judge Corley wants to know which Bethesda game is comparable to Call of Duty? FTC says The Elder Scrolls. FTC also argues Call of Duty is “so exceptionally valuable and so unique.”

If you’ve missed out on the hearing over the past few days, here’s where to catch up:

• Day 1: Microsoft opened the FTC hearing with a Sony bombshell

• Day 2: Has Xbox really lost the console wars?

• Day 3: Sony’s PlayStation chief says publishers hate Xbox Game Pass

• Day 4: Microsoft and Activision CEOs battle to keep a giant Xbox deal alive

First we learned that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in the UK filed to try and delay Microsoft’s appeal of its Activision Blizzard acquisition decision. The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) shut that request down, as it would have pushed the appeal process from July to October — “contrary to justice and fairness.”

Next Canada’s competition regulator intervened with a letter to Judge Corley pointing out it had “concluded that the proposed merger is likely to result in a substantial prevention and / or lessening of competition” in consoles, multi-game subscriptions, and cloud gaming.

Microsoft hit back almost immediately with a statement pointing out that the formal period for Canada’s regulator to prevent the deal from closing has already passed.

There’s already a lot going on with the FTC v. Microsoft case and many moving parts with other regulators as Microsoft approaches the July 18th deadline when its deal with Activision Blizzard expires.

And no, he’s not named after Frank Shaw, lead communications at Microsoft. The only similarities here are that they both growl sometimes 😉