As Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard continues to meet resistance from regulators, Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick took to the airwaves to defend the deal, in a new interview with Fox Business (opens in new tab), Kotick said regulators are reluctant to approve the deal because they are unfamiliar with how the video game industry works, suggesting that the real anti-competitive giant in the market is Sony, not Microsoft.

"I think what we are experiencing now is a regulator that has very little experience with our industry," he said. 'This industry is very fragmented. This industry is very fragmented, and the dominant players right now are Japanese and Chinese companies. So I think as they start to learn more about this industry, they are realizing that that is unfounded."

"What is 'Call of Duty'? It's a military simulation based on historical military experiences. It is not unique as an idea. For example, if Sony wanted to make a military-themed game, they have a movie studio and a library of inspirational TV shows, like "The Last of Us" and a great new show on HBO. But they built this show from the ground up based on a video game. So the competition is very fierce. Once regulators start to understand that, I think they will think differently about this deal than they have in the past." [This is not the first time the success of "The Last of Us" has been brought up in discussions about the Microsoft-Activision deal: In January, Chief Communications Officer Lulu Chen Meservee wrote on Twitter (open in new tab) that the show's success "spans games, TV, movies, and music" reflected the depth of Sony's talent and resources and proved that it could "do just fine without the protection of the FTC."

My first impression was that Meservey's tweet seemed a real departure from Microsoft's official position, namely that "Call of Duty" would not be a console exclusive (opens in new tab).

Kotick, however, explored this point further in the interview, implying that he is not as concerned about CoD's future as Sony has publicly stated.

"Sony is not on the phone with us. In fact, they don't answer our calls. I think one of the things that is surprising to us is that they are not answering our calls at this time when we would normally be discussing the future and new opportunities for partnership together." So I don't think we are as valuable as we are being told we are by our regulators"

.

After reiterating that the business model employed by both Microsoft and Activision Blizzard is to "put software on every microprocessor that has a display," Kotick returned to "The Last of Us" and said that regulators Sony is the one that should be worried, implying that Microsoft has no chance of catching up unless it buys Activision Blizzard.

"We've been trying to make video games into movies for years, but it hasn't worked out. One of Sony's big competitive advantages is that we have television and movies and an extensive library of intellectual property." So we were able to do things that no other company could do. And I think it was because we had a very talented group of developers who made the games, and we were able to leverage Sony's resources. [Microsoft doesn't have a movie studio, it doesn't have a movie library, it doesn't have a television division, it doesn't have a music division that would have a 35% or 40% share of the music industry. [Sony] can use all of these assets in a unique way that Microsoft can't."

Kotick has been terribly silent on the acquisition front until this week (he also spoke about the deal on CNBC this week), which may reflect growing concerns at Microsoft and Activision Blizzard about the fate of the deal. Although no final decision has been made by any of the major regulators at this time, the UK's Competition and Markets Authority recently indicated that it is prepared to oppose the deal unless Activision Blizzard is dismantled prior to the merger; the FTC has also filed suit to block the deal, and that suit is a full-scale effort to end the deal. Some initially thought that this was merely a record registration to express opposition rather than a full-fledged effort to do so, but the longer it drags on, the more it appears to have dug in its heels.

At any rate, Kotick at least managed to convince Fox Business host Liz Claman of the correctness of her argument: after the interview was over, she said, "You sort of explained why it wouldn't be a negative for the competition."

.