CELEX: 32016M7866
Language: en
Date: 2016-02-12 00:00:00
Title: Commission Decision of 12/02/2016 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.7866 - ACTIVISION BLIZZARD / KING) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic)

|[pic]                             |EUROPEAN COMMISSION                                                                                      |

Brussels, 12.02.2016
C(2016) 955 final

                                        [pic]

|                                                                       |To the notifying party:                                                |

Dear Sir/Madam,

Subject:    Case M.7866 – Activision Blizzard / King
Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 139/2004[1] and Article 57 of the Agreement  on  the  European  Economic
Area[2]

  1) On 8 January 2016, the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger  Regulation
     by which Activision Blizzard Inc. ("Activision Blizzard" or the "Notifying Party", United States of America) acquires within the meaning  of
     Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control over King Digital Entertainment plc. ("King", Ireland) by way of  purchase  of  shares
     (the “Transaction”).[3] Activision Blizzard and King are designated hereinafter as the "Parties".

THE PARTIES

  2) Activision Blizzard is a public company, traded on NASDAQ, active in the development and publishing of interactive entertainment. Activision
     Blizzard develops and publishes games in most countries around the world, mainly for personal  computers  ("PCs")  and  consoles  and  to  a
     limited extent for mobile devices.

  3) Activision Blizzard comprises three main operating units: Activision Publishing, Blizzard and Activision Distribution. Activision Publishing
     develops and publishes interactive software products and content mainly for Consoles. Blizzard  also  develops  and  publishes  role-playing
     action and strategy games primarily for PCs, and to a limited extent for consoles and mobile  platforms.  Activision  Distribution  provides
     warehousing, logistical and sales distribution services to third-party publishers of interactive entertainment software.

  4) King is a mobile game developer, founded in 2002, whose games are available principally on tablets and smartphones using the major operation
     systems available on the market. Since the release of its first game in 2004, King has  developed  more  than  200  games  and  offers  them
     worldwide through dedicated websites, social networks (e.g., Facebook), and mobile distribution platforms. As of March 2014, King is  listed
     on the New York Stock Exchange (the "NYSE"). King does not develop games for consoles.

THE OPERATION

  5) The Transaction involves the acquisition of sole control by Activision Blizzard over King.

  6) On 2 November 2016, the Parties announced to have reached an agreement by which Activision Blizzard, by means  of  an  indirect  subsidiary,
     acquires all of the shares of King and thus exercises sole control over King.

  7) Therefore, the Transaction constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

EU DIMENSION

8) The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate world-wide turnover of more than EUR 5 000  million[4]  (Activision  Blizzard:  EUR  […];
   King: EUR […]). Each of them has an EU-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million (Activision Blizzard: EUR […]; King: EUR […]), but  they  do
   not achieve more than two-thirds of their aggregate EU-wide turnover within one and the same Member State.

  9) The Transaction therefore has an EU dimension under Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation.

RELEVANT MARKETS

 10) Activision Blizzard and King are both active in the publishing of game software. The Parties' activities overlap in the publishing  of  game
     software comprising games for PCs, consoles and mobile devices, and, in particular, in the publishing of games for mobile  devices  ("mobile
     game market") and its possible sub-segments.

1 The market for publishing of game software

1 Product market definition

1 The Notifying Party’s view

 11) The Notifying Party considers that, within the overall market for publishing of game software, a separate market exists for mobile games  on
     the one hand, and for PC and console games on the other hand due to their different characteristics both from a demand  and  a  supply  side
     point of view.

 12) From a demand-side perspective, mobile games: (i) are offered for free or at a cheaper price (e.g. EUR 5-10) than PC/console games (e.g. EUR
     50-70); (ii) offer higher flexibility to customers thanks to their "play on-the-go" ability; (iii) are technically less advanced with  lower
     performance in terms of graphic, music and gaming options.

 13) From a supply-side perspective, the Notifying Party submits that  PC/console  and  mobile  games  are  distinct  since  the  development  of
     PC/console games require a considerably higher investment in terms of money, time and resources. In addition,  PC/console  games  require  a
     significant marketing campaign which is not required for mobile games.

 14) The Notifying Party further submits that games released for social networks, such as Facebook, or browsers should be part of the mobile game
     market and should be distinguished from PC/console games since they retain the main characteristics of mobile games (i.e., less expensive to
     develop, less sophisticated technical characteristics, etc.) with the only difference that they can be accessible via a browser.

 15) The Notifying Party submits that the mobile game market should not be further segmented according  to  different  operating  systems  (i.e.,
     Google Android, Apple iOS, etc.). First, in Facebook/WhatsApp[5],  the  Commission  acknowledged  that  communications  apps  available  for
     different operating systems are normally regarded as a single product by users and providers.  Second,  the  Notifying  Party  submits  that
     King's mobile games for Google Play Store and Apple's App Store, which represent around [90-100]% of mobile games revenues, are identical.

 16) In relation to a possible segmentation according to different game genres (such as action, adventure, role-playing games,  sport,  strategy,
     resource management, etc.) the Notifying Party considers, in line with the Commission  decision  in  Vivendi/Activision[6]  on  the  overall
     market for publishing of game software, that a segmentation of mobile games into specific genres would not properly reflect the dynamics  of
     the industry. The Notifying Party suggests a delineation  of  the  product  market  among  casual,  midcore  and  hardcore  with  increasing
     differences in terms of difficulty, strategic thinking and time commitment. The Table below provides a qualitative distinction  between  the
     three.

                                                     Table 1: Potential segmentation of games

|Casual games                           |Midcore games                          |Hardcore games                         |
|More simple game mechanics (e.g.,      |Engaging game concepts                 |Very engaging game concepts that retain|
|puzzle games), engaging in shorter yet |                                       |players                                |
|more frequent periods of time          |                                       |                                       |
|No special skills required             |Requires some strategic thinking       |Usually requires prior gaming          |
|                                       |                                       |experience                             |
|No long term commitment ("instant fun")|Advancement requires short time        |Requires significant time              |
|                                       |commitments                            |commitment for advancement             |
|                                       |                                       |(slow progress)                        |
|Not directly competitive               |                                       |Very competitive, often multiplayer    |

       Source: Notifying Party.

 17) In view of the above, the Notifying Party considers that the relevant market  is  the  market  for  the  publishing  of  all  mobile  games,
     potentially subdivided by gamer types (i.e., casual, midcore and hardcore).

2 The results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment

 18) During the market investigation, the Commission tested whether the segmentation proposed by the Notifying Party was appropriate  or  whether
     alternative broader or narrower product market definitions should be considered.

 19) Respondents' replies to the market investigation were mixed with regard to the segmentation of the overall game software market according to
     platforms into (i) PC, (ii) console and (iii) mobile games.

 20) Most respondents indicated that PC, console and mobile games differ in a number of significant respects  and  that,  in  particular,  mobile
     games appear to belong to a separate product market because of their distinct:

    (i)    pricing policies. Free-to-play model is still the prevailing choice for mobile games, with a minority of  customers  making  "in-app"
           purchases. Conversely, upfront payment is generally the rule for PC and console games, although some free-to-play elements are  being
           gradually introduced for PC games;

    (ii)   production costs. Producing PC and console games involves high investments and large teams of developers and, therefore, releases are
           less frequent compared to mobile games, which can be developed by small teams and are released in the hundreds per day;

    (iii)  characteristics. PC and console games are more content-heavy than mobile ones, offering a more advanced gaming experience in terms of
           graphics, music, available options, gameplay, scope and depth of the storyline. On the contrary, mobile games do not require advanced
           design, music or narrative content. Game session lengths tend to be longer for PC  and  console  games  than  for  mobile  games  and
           massively multiplayer online games ("MMOGs") are more regularly played on PCs and consoles rather than mobile  handsets.  Conversely,
           mobile game sessions are shorter and more repeated, with customers appreciating the  possibility  to  play  "on-to-go"  (e.g.,  while
           travelling to work, on a train, etc.);

    (iv)   distribution channels. While mobile games are distributed through application stores (such as Apple App Store and Google  Play),  the
           majority of sales of PC games are through digital download platform while console games are  generally  offered  through  traditional
           retail stores, dedicated websites or proprietary online platforms (e.g., PlayStation Network or Xbox Live).

 21) Moreover, console games tend to have features distinguishing them from PC ones. In particular, console games tend to be  more  expensive  to
     develop, with generally higher retail prices. Furthermore, while PC games can potentially support a wide range of different  hardware  types
     and devices, console games have to comply with the strict criteria and development guidelines of console platforms, which approve developers
     before the release of games. Consoles are dedicated gaming devices and influence the consumers' choice of a  specific  platform,  while  PCs
     offer additional functionalities.  In addition, console games appear to be  sold  mostly  through  traditional  retail  outlets  and  online
     retailers, while the majority of PC games is sold through digital download.[7]

 22) On the other hand, some respondents pointed out that the lines between different platforms are blurring, because games are often released on
     several platforms, there is substantial substitutability between games written for various  platforms,  and  –  despite  the  differences  –
     customers see PCs, consoles or mobile just as alternative technological options, providing the same gaming experience. [8]

 23) Moreover, the market investigation results indicated that social network games may belong to the same product market as mobile  games  since
     they have evolved in a similar way towards a more casual/interactive gaming experience and thus there is  a  high  correlation  in  gameplay
     styles and types. However, according to certain respondents, browser  games  have  (i)  different  distribution  channels,  since  they  are
     distributed via publishers' own websites or cooperation partner websites (such as Steam or GOG.com), not through  application  stores;  (ii)
     higher session lengths; and (iii) different target groups and game experience, with multiplayer games  being  more  common  than  on  mobile
     devices. [9]

 24) Furthermore, the majority of respondents does not believe that a segmentation according  to  the  type  of  game  or  genre  is  necessarily
     warranted: from a supply-side perspective, the same company, or even the same team, can create all types of games; and  from  a  demand-side
     point of view, such distinctions are not followed by customers and could not be accurately made.[10] Similarly, respondents believe that the
     market should not be segmented according to the different type of game in casual, mid-core, hard core.[11]

 25) Finally, the market investigation results indicated that a subsegmentation within the mobile games segment  according  to  operating  system
     does not appear justified because companies generally develop games for all major operating systems (e.g. Apple App Store and  Google  Play)
     and, in any event, there are no meaningful differences between games played using different operating systems.[12]

3 Conclusion

 26) Based on the results of the market investigation, the Commission concludes that there are indications that the market for publishing of game
     software should be segmented according to the different platforms in: (i) PC games; (ii) console games; and (iii)  mobile  games.  Moreover,
     the Commission believes that the market investigation results do not support a further segmentation of the mobile games market.

 27) In any event, for the purpose of this decision the precise product market definition can be left open, as the  Transaction  does  not  raise
     serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market in relation to the publishing of game software under any  plausible  product
     market definition.

2 Geographic market definition

1 The Notifying Party’s view

 28) In the present case, the Notifying Party submits that the relevant geographic market for publishing of mobile games  is  at  least  EEA-wide
     since: (i) there are no significant price differences between EEA Member States; (ii) the same publishers are active across the  EEA;  (iii)
     games are usually sourced on the same platforms across the EEA (e.g., Apple's App Store,  Google  Play  Store);  (iv)  technical  conditions
     related to broadband and mobile internet penetration have become largely similar across the EEA; and (v) language is not a constraint  since
     mobile games are easy to understand due to their limited complexity.

2 The results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment

 29) In Vivendi/Activision[13], the Commission left open the question whether the geographic scope of the market for publishing of game  software
     should be national or EEA-wide. In particular, there were a number of elements that pointed to national markets, such as  national  consumer
     preferences, and others indicating a geographic scope wider than national, such as the organization of the sales teams.

 30) In the present case, the vast majority of respondents to the market investigation believes that the geographic market for the publishing  of
     game software (and all its sub-segments) should be at least EEA-wide, if not worldwide, due to generally  uniform  pricing,  purchasing  and
     game dynamics. In particular, one respondent highlighted how gaming  became  a  worldwide  industry  with  the  advent  of  digital  content
     distribution. However, some respondents pointed out that there are still differences in certain  countries  with  respect  to  a  number  of
     aspects (e.g., pricing, business licences, taxes, age rating, import restrictions, and platform availability).[14]

3 Conclusion

 31) Based on the results of the market investigation, the Commission concludes that there are indications that the various possible segments for
     the market for publishing of mobile game software are likely to be at least EEA, if not worldwide in scope.

 32) However, the precise scope of the geographic market can be left  open,  as  the  Transaction  does  not  raise  serious  doubts  as  to  its
     compatibility with the internal market with regard to the market for publishing of game software and the potential narrower markets for  PC,
     console and mobile games irrespective of the precise geographic market definition.

COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT

 33) The Transaction would lead to an overlap between the Parties in the following potential markets: (i) the overall market  for  publishing  of
     game software; (ii) the market for publishing of mobile games; (iii) the narrower potential market for publishing of mobile games  according
     to different operating systems (i.e., Google Android, Apple iOS, etc.). However, the Transaction would only give rise to an affected  market
     in relation to the potential mobile games market in the UK.

1 The Notifying Party's view

 34) The Notifying Party submits that the Parties' activities overlap in the market for publishing of games and some of  its  narrower  segments.
     Their combined market share would be above [20-30]% only in the mobile games market segment in the UK. The Notifying Party  further  submits
     that no competition concerns of a horizontal nature can be expected to arise post-merger.

 35) The Notifying Party argues that both on the overall game software publishing market and on all narrower potential markets there is  a  large
     number of strong competitors. Following the Transaction, there would still remain a significant number of competitors in the market, leaving
     customers with ample opportunity to switch.

 36) The Parties further argue that the Transaction would not give rise to significant overlap since  Activision  Blizzard  and  King  appeal  to
     different categories of gamers. Activision Blizzard's most successful mobile games are midcore, whereas King's can be categorised as casual.

 37) Moreover, according to the Notifying Party, the mobile game market, irrespective of possible segmentation, has low barriers to entry and has
     seen a significant number of new entrants in the past years. Developing mobile games does not  require  significant  capital  investment  or
     large team of developers. In addition, distribution costs are low since games are distributed through  easily  accessible  online  platforms
     (e.g., Apple's App Store and Google Play). In addition, the Notifying Party submits that many of today's main mobile game publishers did not
     exist less than ten years ago.[15]

 38) In addition, the Notifying Party argues that customer switching is easy and that alternatives are virtually unlimited, as there are tens  of
     thousands of mobile games, offered by hundreds of developers, for free on both Apple's App Store and Google Play  platforms.  The  Notifying
     Party further submits that customer switching impacts also the ability to increase prices (in particular, moving from a free app to a paying
     app) or decrease the quality of the service offered (e.g., making progression within the game more difficult  in  the  absence  of  payment)
     which would thus be likely to trigger a significant decrease in downloads of (or activity in) the affected game and an  orientation  towards
     free/cheaper games of other developers.

2 The results of the market investigation and the Commission's assessment

 39) The table below shows the market shares of the Parties in the EEA and in the major  European  markets[16]  based  on  the  NewZoo  data  and
     internal estimates:

                                              Table 2: Mobile publishing game market shares in 2014

|2014 - Sales (€)                                                            |Market share (%)                                          |
|                                               |EEA/                         |Activision      |King            |Combined                |
|                                               |National                     |Blizzard        |                |                        |
|Mobile                                         |EEA                          |[0-5]%          |[10-20]%        |[10-20]%                |
|Mobile                                         |UK                           |[0-5]%          |[20-30]%        |[20-30]%                |
|Mobile                                         |France                       |[0-5]%          |[10-20]%        |[10-20]%                |
|Mobile                                         |Germany                      |[0-5]%          |[10-20]%        |[10-20]%                |
|Mobile - Google Play                           |EEA                          |[0-5]%          |[10-20]%        |[10-20]%                |
|Mobile - iOS                                   |EEA                          |[0-5]%          |[10-20]%        |[10-20]%                |
|Browser and social networks                    |EEA                          |[0-5]%          |[20-30]%        |[20-30]%                |

   Source: Notifying Parties based on NewZoo data and internal estimates.

40) First, based on Parties' estimates, the Parties would not hold a significant combined market share in any of the possible markets within the
    game publishing software industry. The highest combined market shares are [20-30]% in the potential market for mobile games in  the  UK  and
    [20-30]% in the browser and social network market segment at EEA level.

41) In any case, in all those markets the overlap between the two companies is limited, with Activision Blizzard having a market  share  between
    [0-5]% and [0-5]% depending on the different geographic and product segmentation of the overall mobile  game  market.  Moreover,  Activision
    Blizzard is not active in the browser and social network market segment, where King has a market share above [20-30]%.

                             Table 3: Market shares in potential narrower market segments of main competitors in 2014

|Market shares based on sales of 2014                                                                                                    |
|Game publishing market    |Mobile game                                                                                                  |
|                          |Overall                   |iOS platform              |Google Play platform        |Overall                   |
|EEA                       |EEA                       |EEA                       |EEA                         |UK                        |

Electronic Arts |[10-20]% |Supercell |[5-10]% |Supercell |[10-20]% |Supercell |[5-10]% |Supercell |[10-20]% | |Ubisoft |[5-10]% |Electronic Arts
|[0-5]% |Electronic Arts |[0-5]% |Electronic Arts |[0-5]% |Electronic Arts |[5-10]% | |Nintendo |[0-5]% |Kabam |[0-5]% |Machine Zone |[0-5]%
|Kabam |[0-5]% |Machine Zone |[0-5]% | |Take Two |[0-5]% |Machine Zone |[0-5]% |Kabam |[0-5]% |Goodgame Studios |[0-5]% |Kabam |[0-5]% | |Others
|[60-70]% |Others |[60-70]% |Others |[60-70]% |Others |[70-80]% |Others |[50-60]% | |Source: Notifying Parties based on NewZoo data and  internal
   estimates.

42) Second, as shown in Table above, a large number of competitors would remain active in the EEA in the mobile game market  and  each  possible
    narrower market after the Transaction, including Supercell (with a market share of [5-10]% in the overall EEA market and  [10-20]%  and  [5-
    10]%, respectively, for the possible narrower Apple iOS and Google Play market segments), Electronic Arts (with a market share of [0-5]%  in
    the EEA mobile game market), Kabam, Machine Zone and Zynga with respectively [0-5]%, [0-5]% and [0-5]%. Thus,  customers  would  have  ample
    opportunities to switch.

 43) The fact that Activision Blizzard and King are not close competitors is supported by the market investigation results. Regarding the overall
     gaming publishing market, most of the respondents indicated that the Parties are not in direct  competition.  In  particular,  none  of  the
     respondents consider that Activision Blizzard and King are in direct competition in the PC games and console games market segments.  Several
     respondents highlight how Activision Blizzard is primarily active in the PCs and consoles market segments while,  on  the  opposite,  King's
     games are primarily offered on mobile/social media platforms. Nintendo further considers that King's games  are  all  casual  games  whereas
     Activision Blizzard's only major casual game is Hearthstone which is not in direct competition with King's games.[17]

 44) Furthermore, none of the respondents to the market investigation include Activision Blizzard in the list of  the  top  five  King's  closest
     competitors. One respondent, in particular, considers Activision Blizzard's competitors are the top gaming companies which develop their own
     products as well as publish them such as Nintendo and Electronic Arts, while King is  a  casual  game  developer  and  competes  with  other
     publishers in the specific market segment.[18]

 45) This finding is further confirmed by observing the top ten mobile game companies and mobile game apps in the Apple  Store  and  Google  Play
     platforms in the UK, the only market in the EEA where the two companies have market shares above [20-30]%.

   Table 4: Top ten companies as of November 2015 on iOS and Google Play combined by downloads and revenues in the UK

[pic] Source: App Annie Intelligence.

 46) As presented in the Table above, King is the second publisher by downloads and the first by revenue, but Activision Blizzard is not included
     in the list of top ten competitors in neither of the two rankings. In particular there are other competitors active in the  market  such  as
     Electronic Arts and Churchill Dows which offer more than ten times the number of applications offered by King and, thus, exert a competitive
     constraint on King.

   Table 5: Top ten apps as of November 2015 on iOS and Google Play combined by downloads and revenues in the UK

[pic]

Source: App Annie Intelligence.

 47) The results are similar when observing the top ten apps by download and revenue. King has an important position having two apps in  the  top
     ten rankings, while none of Activision Blizzard's applications appears in the two rankings.

 48) Third, the mobile game market is characterized by low barriers to entry. Thousands of new mobile games are launched each year by a multitude
     of developers. Opposite to PCs and consoles games, developing mobile games does not  necessarily  require  significant  capital  investment,
     large teams of developers or advanced technology. In addition, well established PC and console  games  developers  showed  interest  in  the
     mobile game market and recently announced their intention to enter in this space. In 2015 both Nintendo and Konami announced their plans  to
     expand in the mobile game market.

 49) Respondents further consider that entry in the market for game publishing and its segments is easy both in term of time and costs to develop
     and launch a new game. One respondent also offering PC and console games, in particular, submits that entering the market can be done at low
     cost and with a short development time while distribution is easy thanks to online platforms such as Apple's  App  Store  and  Google  Play.
     Another respondent further highlights that in the mobile game market, there are also examples of games written and  published  by  a  single
     individual that achieved worldwide success such as Minecraft and Flappy Bird. Ubisoft explained that  market  entry  is  easy  but  it  also
     submitted that, in order to be successful, publishers need to obtain high visibility which requires certain marketing costs. The differences
     are even more significant when entry is compared with the PC and consoles market segments which is considered much more  time-consuming  and
     expensive by respondents to the market investigation.[19]

 50) Fourth, customer switching is very easy with thousands of games available for free on both Apple's App  Store  and  Google  Play  platforms.
     Downloading a new game is easy and requires only few minutes and a few taps on a screen. Other  than  the  potential  cost  of  an  Internet
     connection, there are no costs to the act of switching itself since there is no need to delete a previously downloaded game.

 51) The market investigation results indicated that switching between  different  mobile  game  publishers  is  particularly  easy.  Respondents
     indicated the following as the main reasons why customer switching is easy: (i) there are no entry barriers as most of the mobile games  are
     free-to-play; (ii) all mobile games are accessible on platforms easily accessible (e.g. Apple's App Store, Google Play); (iii) there  is  an
     extensive mobile game offer; and (iv) there are no costs to switch to another game. In particular, respondents  highlighted  that  customers
     purchase according to mobile game content and not on a publisher basis.[20]

 52) Finally, the market investigation results indicated that post-Transaction there would be a sufficient number of mobile game publishers  able
     to compete with the merged entity. Since the barriers to entry are low and games can  be  distributed  without  major  investments,  a  very
     significant number of mobile games will continue to be available on the market.[21]

 53) The majority of market respondents considers that the Transaction would not have any impact in  the  game  software  publishing  market,  in
     particular in the PC and console games market segments. Some respondents submitted that the Transaction may have a positive  impact  in  the
     mobile game market segment by adding dynamism in that market segment.[22] Respondents confirm that there will be no impact  in  relation  to
     the competitive environment with a very large number of publishers capable of developing and marketing games whose success  will  depend  on
     the quality of their games.

3 Conclusion

 54) The Commission concludes that the Transaction does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market on  the  market
     for the game software publishing and any potential narrower markets.

CONCLUSION

 55) For the above reasons, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market
     and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57  of  the  EEA
     Agreement.

For the Commission

(signed)
Vĕra JOUROVÁ
Member of the Commission

-----------------------
[1]   OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ('the Merger Regulation'). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the  European  Union
('TFEU') has introduced certain changes, such as the  replacement  of  'Community祢✠湕潩❮愠摮✠潣浭湯洠牡敫❴戠⁹椧瑮牥慮⁬慭歲瑥⸧吠敨琠牥業潮潬祧漠⁦'
by 'Union' and 'common market' by 'internal market'. The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2]   OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p.3 ("the EEA Agreement").

[3]   Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 12, 15.01.2016, p. 4.

[4]   Turnover calculated in accordance with Article 5 of the Merger Regulation.

[5]   Commission decision of 3 October 2014 in Case M.7217 – Facebook/WhatsApp.

[6]   Commission decision of 3 October 2014 in Case M.7217 – Facebook/WhatsApp.

[7]   See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 5.

[8]   See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 6.

[9]   See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 9.

[10]  See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 9.

[11]  See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 8.

[12]  See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 10.

[13]  Commission decision of 16 April 2008 in Case M.5008 – Vivendi/Activision.

[14]  See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 11.

[15]  Goodgames studios was founded in 2009; IGG.COM was founded in 2006; Kabam was founded in 2006; Nordeus was founded in  2009;  upercell  was
   founded in 2010; Zynga was founded in 2007.

[16]  Only market shares related to France, Germany and UK are presented since those are the major European markets […] of EEA  revenues  of  the
   two companies combined. In addition Activision Blizzard's activity in the other Member States is limited. For example, in the fourth  largest
   market by revenue (Italy), Activision Blizzard's revenues were […] equal to EUR […] in 2014.

[17]  See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 12.

[18]  See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 13.

[19]  See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 15.

[20]  See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 13.

[21]  See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 16.

[22]  See replies to Commission questionnaire to competitors and trade association Q1 of 8 January 2016, question 17.

-----------------------
In the published version of this decision, some information has been omitted pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  139/2004
concerning non-disclosure of business secrets and other  confidential  information.  The  omissions  are  shown  thus  […].  Where  possible  the
information omitted has been replaced by ranges of figures or a general description.

                                                                  PUBLIC VERSION

                                                                 MERGER PROCEDURE