Italian regulators want to know if two hit mobile games from Microsoft’s Activision Blizzard are misleading players. The country’s competition authority, AGCM, said Friday it opened a probe into “Diablo Immortal” and “Call of Duty Mobile.”
Officials suspect the company is pushing players to spend more time gaming and buying promoted deals through aggressive tactics. The games call themselves free, but still sell items inside the app.
Microsoft and Activision Blizzard haven’t commented yet
At the heart of the probe are those constant notifications telling players to act fast or miss out on rewards and limited-time deals.
“These practices, together with strategies that make it difficult for users to understand the real value of the virtual currency used in the game and the sale of in-game currency in bundles, may influence players as consumers – including minors,” regulators said. People end up spending big money without grasping what they’re actually paying.
This isn’t the first time Activision has faced backlash over aggressive monetization. The company previously had to remove ads from Call of Duty titles after community outcry.
$69.7B deal still drawing scrutiny
There’s another problem too. Parental controls apparently start on a weaker setting, letting kids buy stuff in the games.
Microsoft shelled out $69.7 billion for Activision back in 2023. Getting that deal done wasn’t easy. Regulators around the world picked it apart, looking for competition problems. The European Commission signed off only after Microsoft agreed to license Activision games to rival platforms for 10 years and let competitors offer cloud streaming.
The acquisition came with major leadership changes and transformed Microsoft into a mobile gaming giant overnight.
Britain’s watchdog actually blocked the whole thing at first. The companies had to rework the agreement, selling Activision’s cloud streaming rights to French game company Ubisoft before UK officials would approve it.
The FTC also tried to block the merger but ultimately failed to convince courts that the deal would harm competition.
