Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

What are you trying to get across?

Pay no mind to them, they also spent a page arguing that we should not count revenue from Xbox Game Pass as part of Xbox.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

"SG/Cade believes that, as the cloud gaming model become more widespread among gamers - and therefore also more profitable for service providers -, such companies will have full financial and technological conditions to produce (or buy) exclusive content and enter the video game market more competitively....
In fact, if there is interest and incentives, companies like Google and Amazon have more than enough resources to invest in hiring talent, creating their own development studios, in partnerships with successful publishers , or even in the incorporation of large game studios or publishers."

I'm guessing CADE wrote this before Stadia decided to shutter.
Isn't that the issue? The reason why MS are even buying ABK is because creating their own development studio or partnering with publishers for that all important "exclusive content" is difficult for those behind or entering the market? Also partnering with publishers becomes even more difficult if somebody is out there buying up all the partners you try to partner with for popular content.

Stadia closed down without really trying to compete. Google has more than enough money to build new studios and buy 3rd party studios or even publishers, they simply didn't want to commit though. Not Microsoft's fault.

 

[Infamy v1]

Stadia closed down without really trying to compete. Google has more than enough money to build new studios and buy 3rd party studios or even publishers, they simply didn't want to commit though. Not Microsoft's fault.

You're arguing with someone that woke up this morning and chose to ingest three different shades of copium with his coffee. Don't bother.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Hmm

"It is important to highlight that the central objective of CADE's activities is the protection of competition for Brazilian consumers, and not the defense of the particular interests of specific competitors."

gg

 

[Godot25]

"SG/Cade believes that, as the cloud gaming model become more widespread among gamers - and therefore also more profitable for service providers -, such companies will have full financial and technological conditions to produce (or buy) exclusive content and enter the video game market more competitively....
In fact, if there is interest and incentives, companies like Google and Amazon have more than enough resources to invest in hiring talent, creating their own development studios, in partnerships with successful publishers , or even in the incorporation of large game studios or publishers."

I'm guessing CADE wrote this before Stadia decided to shutter.
Isn't that the issue? The reason why MS are even buying ABK is because creating their own development studio or partnering with publishers for that all important "exclusive content" is difficult for those behind or entering the market? Also partnering with publishers becomes even more difficult if somebody is out there buying up all the partners you try to partner with for popular content.

What is even a point in all of this in regards with Stadia?
No Activision Blizzard game outside of Sekiro was on Stadia even when Activision Blizzard was separate company. No Warzone, no Overwatch, no Call of Duty. So you can't even try to pretend that this deal has anything to do with Stadia shutting down.

Do you know why Stadia is finished? Because Google was not willing to invest despite fact that they have money to do it (they could even afford Activision Blizzard with money they have in bank rn). But they can at least use Bethesda/Activision stuff to place blame on someone else. Only reason why they have problems with this deal is because Activision Blizzard is using Google Cloud for their games and backend and after this deal will close they will for sure move all their shit under Microsoft Azure.

 

[onesvenus]

Brazil - like other regions with less impact - probably needed to publicly flex about the deal anyway because of the deal size but were never going to be the front runner to oppose the acquisition

They were in the case of Disney. That sounds a little bit racist to be fair.

The share price has dropped in the last month by 3.5% - if I'm not mistaken and 1% of that in the last 24hrs - which seems weird if the market actual believed this deal will be more likely to succeed following the Brazil approval.

NASDAQ has been down a 3.5% in the last month. That share price drop is not related to this process at all but to the market trend

 

[Three]

Stadia closed down without really trying to compete. Google has more than enough money to build new studios and buy 3rd party studios or even publishers, they simply didn't want to commit though. Not Microsoft's fault.

Why would they not try and compete. Sounds like a bizarre reason. "Hey we've decided to not try and compete".

Stadia Games closed blaming the Bethesda buyout. It probably bid but it couldn't justify they cost with the marketshare. It failed to partner or incentives any major publishers to release on the platform outside of the huge money sink it initially spent paying the likes of Rockstar and Ubisoft for them to release on their platform. They tried, but it was difficult.

 

[onesvenus]

Why would they not try and compete. Sounds like a bizarre reason. "Hey we've decided to not try and compete".

Stadia Games closed blaming the Bethesda buyout. It probably bid but it couldn't justify they cost with the marketshare. It failed to partner or incentives any major publishers to release on the platform outside of the huge money sink it initially spent paying the likes of Rockstar and Ubisoft for them to release on their platform. They tried, but it was difficult.

There's a difference between being difficult to compete and not wanting to invest money on an endeavor. One does not imply the other

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Why would they not try and compete. Sounds like a bizarre reason. "Hey we've decided to not try and compete".

CADE tells you why: because the cloud gaming market is still way too small to really be worth it.

Stadia Games closed blaming the Bethesda buyout. It probably bid but it couldn't justify they cost with the marketshare.

And that blame is complete nonsense. They stopped building first party studios because Microsoft bought a third party studio? What?

It failed to partner or incentives any major publishers to release on the platform outside of the huge money sink it initially spent paying the likes of Rockstar and Ubisoft for them to release on their platform. They tried, but it was difficult.

They made several mistakes, that's why it was difficult. The business model was bad. Them using Linux was bad. Combined with cloud gaming being a tiny market, it just wasn't worth it.

 

[BoxFresh123]

"Introducing out new Xbox Design Lab Brazillian themed controller"

Expect this eventually gets waved through by whoever needs to give it the nod around the world even if MS make small concessions to ensure so.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

"Introducing out new Xbox Design Lab Brazillian themed controller"

You're joking, but the most recent copium on Playstation warrior twitter is that Microsoft and Brazil announced a jobs program partnership in 2020 which means that Brazil is of course in Microsoft's pocket and thus waved the deal through.

 

[Three]

What is even a point in all of this in regards with Stadia?
No Activision Blizzard game outside of Sekiro was on Stadia even when Activision Blizzard was separate company. No Warzone, no Overwatch, no Call of Duty. So you can't even try to pretend that this deal has anything to do with Stadia shutting down.

Do you know why Stadia is finished? Because Google was not willing to invest despite fact that they have money to do it (they could even afford Activision Blizzard with money they have in bank rn). But they can at least use Bethesda/Activision stuff to place blame on someone else. Only reason why they have problems with this deal is because Activision Blizzard is using Google Cloud for their games and backend and after this deal will close they will for sure move all their shit under Microsoft Azure.

Where do I say ABK specifically has something to do with Stadia failing? It certainly makes it more difficult for newcomers to partner for popular content though. Google did invest in Stadia. It spent a lot and that was for multiplatform games. Not even exclusives.

 

[adamsapple]

You're joking, but the most recent copium on Playstation warrior twitter is that Microsoft and Brazil announced a jobs program partnership in 2020 which means that Brazil is of course in Microsoft's pocket and thus waved the deal through.

Someone forgot to tell the CMA

UK government signs new three-year Memorandum of Understanding with Microsoft

The move will enable public sector organisations to continue to unlock the benefits of cloud computing and business applications.

news.microsoft.com

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Someone forgot to tell the CMA

http://[URL]https://news.microsoft....r-memorandum-of-understanding-with-microsoft/

[/URL]

 

[Three]

CADE tells you why: because the cloud gaming market is still way too small to really be worth it.

And that blame is complete nonsense. They stopped building first party studios because Microsoft bought a third party studio? What?

They made several mistakes, that's why it was difficult. The business model was bad. Them using Linux was bad. Combined with cloud gaming being a tiny market, it just wasn't worth it.

They stopped their publishing endeavours because it was costly to try and compete. Them merely deciding that they didn't want to try and compete or didn't invest is nonsense though. The OS is part of the CMA investigation too, you know why they used Linux.

 

[Godot25]

Where do I say ABK specifically has something to do with Stadia failing? It certainly makes it more difficult for newcomers to partner for popular content though. Google did invest in Stadia. It spent a lot and that was for multiplatform games. Not even exclusives.

Look. They have every opportunity to jump to buy Bethesda or Activision Blizzard. Or Bungie. Or anybody else. They have money to do it.
So yeah. They invested. But nearly not enough.

Just look how many billions Microsoft spent when they entered the market with Xbox. And they had even benefit of having close relationship with Sega which helped them immensely in OG Xbox era. Why do you think Microsoft offered to buy Nintendo at the start of Xbox? Because they knew they need to invest HEAVILY at the beginning to stay relevant. And that was in time of domination by PlayStation.

Google somehow thought that people are so angry to download patches for games that they will switch to Stadia regardless of how much exclusive content will be there. And don't get me started on bad business decisions around Stadia, broken promises and missing features. Also, being cloud only really hurted them.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

They stopped their publishing endeavours because it was costly to try and compete. Them merely deciding that they didn't want to try and compete or didn't invest is nonsense though. The OS is part of the CMA investigation too, you know why they used Linux.

They used Linux to save money. Turned out to be a terrible decision, though. It ultimately would've been cheaper to go with Windows.

 

[Three]

Look. They have every opportunity to jump to buy Bethesda or Activision Blizzard. Or Bungie. Or anybody else. They have money to do it.
So yeah. They invested. But nearly not enough.

Just look how many billions Microsoft spent when they entered the market with Xbox. And they had even benefit of having close relationship with Sega which helped them immensely in OG Xbox era. Why do you think Microsoft offered to buy Nintendo at the start of Xbox? Because they knew they need to invest HEAVILY at the beginning to star relevant. And that was in time of domination by PlayStation.

Google somehow thought that people are so angry to download patches for games that they will switch to Stadia regardless of how much exclusive content will be there. And don't get me started on bad business decisions around Stadia, broken promises and missing features. Also, being cloud only really hurted them.

Because buying a publisher for $70B when you have an install base of 2M is not a sound investment. I've already said. It becomes difficult for partnerships or paying for exclusive content when you are a new entrant or behind. That's the point. When those publishers with popular content like Minecraft, ES, CoD get bought out? Forget about it. They would have struggled just making the partnership even before.

 

[Three]

They used Linux to save money. Turned out to be a terrible decision, though. It ultimately would've been cheaper to go with Windows.

They used linux because they have more experience with linux and didn't want to have the extra licencing cost paying a competitor and making it difficult to compete on price. The idea that that was a bad decision only shows that the current market is not favourable to competing OS for cloud gaming which was something that the CMA raised.

 

[Banjo64]

You're joking, but the most recent copium on Playstation warrior twitter is that Microsoft and Brazil announced a jobs program partnership in 2020 which means that Brazil is of course in Microsoft's pocket and thus waved the deal through.

Almost as retarded as a comment I read on here that seriously states that the CMA will favour Jim Ryan because he is British - morons gunna moron I guess.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

They used linux because they have more experience with linux and didn't want to have the extra licencing cost paying a competitor and making it difficult to compete on price. The idea that that was a bad decision only shows that the current market is not favourable to competing OS for cloud gaming which was something that the CMA raised.

Now the big question is, what does the ABK deal have to do with all of this? Literally nothing. This "problem" remains whether the deal goes through or not. It's not a valid reason to block the deal.

 

[Godot25]

Now the big question is, what does the ABK deal have to do with all of this? Literally nothing. This "problem" remains whether the deal goes through or not. It's not a valid reason to block the deal.

As I said previously. Google is just using Stadia as an excuse to bitch about this deal. Their real motivation is to not loose valuable customer on Cloud space since ActiBlizz is currently using Google Cloud for their games and backend. And that will go to Azure when this deal will be closed.

 

[PaintTinJr]

They were in the case of Disney. That sounds a little bit racist to be fair.

I don't see how, I was just reiterating what I had read about the only real need for the three major jurisdictions of the US, EU and UK needing to approve the deal for it to clear.

NASDAQ has been down a 3.5% in the last month. That share price drop is not related to this process at all but to the market trend

But if the Brazil approval had made an impact, you would expect ACTIV to trend against the market, surely, no? especially with the share price below the offer price.

 

[T0kenAussie]

That is a ridiculous take to claim investing in a new market for 21years (and counting) is acceptable business practices. 5year projects or less is typical - for RoI- 10years if the things changing would justify it, say like Moore's laws impact on things, but the idea of it taking 21years to try and "compete" with a regular strategy in a well-defined marketplace (the games industry) with a viable (profitable) platform is just you, defending the indefensible strategy of a mega corporation with previous.


Saved by the bell - with a change of government - and a new policy of unamerican to sue successful American companies IIRC.

A method of operation only dies when people stop using the method. The investment stage for Xbox was up in 2006-2011, if it wasn't profitable by then, they aren't competition in the market for Nintendo or PlayStation, and are following that old methodology IMHO.

Nothing cliched about calling things out for what they are, is there?

Just a quick aside. When you are trying to narrow down "the games industry". Exactly how narrow are you going? Because the video game market is 60% on mobile phones, 40% roughly on pc and console combined. So l dunno if Microsoft isn't in the "games industry" enough for you but

They run the operating systems that developers us on their PCs and support directx and other developer friendly initiatives like play fab online services and game stack support.

They standardised internal hard drives, Ethernet ports, online gaming infrastructure through a system wide account system across all games, online parties and chat functions, evolved the console FPS and introduced western rpgs like morrowind to console gamers. I dunno if that's "not in video games" or not but I guess that depends on your short sighted position of whether winning npd sales number charts is the most important thing that matters in this conversation for some reason? Ok? But that's more corporate cheerleader in my opinion than utilising new technologies and services in videogames

BUT if that's what you want they also took a smash indie hit and cultivated into the most successful video game franchise of all time which currently sits at 240 million copies sold roughly.

Pretty good for not getting returns on investment huh

 

[reksveks]

I think the main differentiator between the Brazilian and rest of the regulators is that Brazil is looking at the cloud/streaming market as it stands now whereas US/EU etc. regulators job is to try to evaluate the further implications of the deal if streaming/cloud takes off in the way that MS themselves are betting on it will. Different ways to analyze the same subject.

The Brazilian regulators seem to be looking at cloud streaming as a part of the wider market cause its only forecasted to be 6% in 4/5 years time.

They stopped their publishing endeavours because it was costly to try and compete. Them merely deciding that they didn't want to try and compete or didn't invest is nonsense though. The OS is part of the CMA investigation too, you know why they used Linux.

Everyone is kinda cutting back on their moonshot.

Re the choice not to use Windows, I think they came up with features that would have required porting so they just decided to double on requiring ports. There are other streaming companies using Windows so the interesting question is whether they find the license cost prohibitive.

 

[SportsFan581]

Brazil/CADE reasons for approval

1.- Regarding the horizontal overlaps verified in the markets of game publishing, game distribution, online advertising, and licensing for merchandising products, the analysis carried out indicated that the Operation would not be able to promote significant changes in their respective offer structures, in any of the scenarios considered - either because the concentration generated was less than 20%, or because the low variation of the HHI pointed to the inexistence of a causal link between this AC and possible possibility of exercising market power, according to parameters defined in Resolution No. 33, of April 14, 2022, from Cade.

2.- With regard to possible vertical effects, an attempt was made to assess whether, as a result of the Transaction, Microsoft would have the ability or incentives to close any of the vertically related or complementary markets.

3.- As for the possibility of closing the game publishing market (upstream), it was found that, despite Microsoft having control of a relevant portion of the console and digital game distribution markets (downstream), the company would not have incentives to make it difficult for publishers competing with Activision Blizzard to access its platforms, as this would necessarily imply a reduction in quantity and variety of the catalog of games available in the Xbox ecosystem, making the company's products and services less attractive to consumers.

4.- With regard to the possibility of closing downstream markets, the analysis pointed out that, despite their relevance and popularity, Activision Blizzard games – and in particular the Call of Duty series– would not be essential assets to the performance of Microsoft's current and potential competitors in the console and digital game distribution markets (considering, in the latter, both digital stores and multiple game subscription services for PC and consoles). Thus, even if the Activision Blizzard game catalog were to become exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem after the Transaction, SG/Cade considers that such exclusivity would not result in a substantial reduction in the levels of competition in the downstream markets, even if it could translate into a competitive advantage for Microsoft.

5.- Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the central objective of CADE's activities is the protection of competition as a means of promoting the well-being of Brazilian consumers, and not the defense of the particular interests of specific competitors. After all, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the holder of the legal assets protected by Law No. 12,529/2011 is the collectivity, and not the competitor/economic agent as an individual entity. In this sense, although it is recognized that part of the users of PlayStation consoles (from Sony) could decide to migrate to Xbox in the event that Activision Blizzard games - and especially Call of Duty– become exclusive to the Microsoft ecosystem, SG/Cade does not believe that such a possibility represents, in itself, a risk to competition in the console market as a whole.

6.- Finally, in relation to the existing complementarity between the activities of Microsoft and Activision Blizzard in the game publishing markets - and especially in the mobile games segment - and online advertising, it was found that the shares held by the Parties in these segments, in all scenarios examined, are well below the minimum percentage considered for the purpose of presumption of the possibility of closing the market, as defined in article 8, IV of CADE Resolution No. 33/2022.

It is concluded, therefore, that the possible vertical integrations and complementarities that may be generated or reinforced by the Transaction do not give rise to significant risks to competition, since no elements were identified that allow inferring the closure of any of the vertically related markets.

In view of the foregoing, it is concluded that the present merger is approved without restrictions.

And that's exactly the results that should start coming down everywhere. Sony potentially loosing some customers is not the kind of thing these regulatory bodies should be looking at. Sony would still be able to compete just fine even if a worst case scenario materialized for PS following the deal.

 

[Negotiator101]

Pay no mind to them, they also spent a page arguing that we should not count revenue from Xbox Game Pass as part of Xbox.

Really? I've seen a tremendous amount of posts in this thread from that particular poster, and it's very anti Microsoft. Seems very concerned with this acquisition going through

 

[Three]

Now the big question is, what does the ABK deal have to do with all of this? Literally nothing. This "problem" remains whether the deal goes through or not. It's not a valid reason to block the deal.

Ask the CMA or read the docs. The problem is that it can "restrict access" of a popular franchise on competing cloud services. Especially if another company cannot enter a partnership to develop it on their platform which happens to be using a competing OS.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Brazil and Qatar, coalition of the willing.

 

[Ozriel]

The rumor mill has Sony closing in on an acquisition themselves so they might have some bullets in their gun very soon to trade with

They don't need any of that, tbh. Their acquisition of Bungie went through without a hitch, despite costing $3bn.
Unless they're acquiring something that would cross financial thresholds, no real issues worthy of discussion will arise.

 

[ReBurn]

I've literally already quoted an pasted how from the CMA's summary. Having access to Xbox Game Studios, Zenimax and ABK combined with their internal structure and existing brand recognition would put them in a unique position and could prevent future entrants in the space.


Again, I've just said. It shows that it's already difficult for a giant like Google to crack this market. If you allow Microsoft (or Sony/Nintendo for that matter) to acquire the few remaining publishers, it could prevent any possible future entrants in to the space.


Well that's your opinion. Personally I think it's laughable to cheer on countries like Brazil and Saudi Arabia ratifying this as quickly as they can and trying to paint it as though those countries have the most thorough and in depth knowledge about the gaming industry or competition in general, whilst the UK (and presumably EU) are just Sony cocksuckers. Laughable.

It's kind of a disingenuous argument, though. Most of the other big publishers are already in the subscription service space. EA, Ubisoft and Sony are already there. Sony literally could copy Gamepass at any time by bringing first party to their service day 1 and they would probably beat Microsoft at sub service gaming.

Sony's argument comes down to them not wanting the factors that support their business model to change. It's understandable. But regulators aren't there to protect the status quo.

 

[adamsapple]

The rumor mill has Sony closing in on an acquisition themselves so they might have some bullets in their gun very soon to trade with

Would be odd considering not 2 days ago Herman made a statement that they're not in the market to take publishers/developers off the market.

Odd, but not surprising. The acquisitions pandora box has been opened.

 

[The_Mike]

Your stance was that Sony can copy Microsoft at any time, therefore there's no harm to possible competition in the gaming subscription market. It's not true

Why not?

Sony has said they won't put first party games on psplus day one.

It's sonys own fault, not Microsoft's.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Would be odd considering not 2 days ago Herman made a statement that they're not in the market to take publishers/developers off the market.

Odd, but not surprising. The acquisitions pandora box has been opened.

No idea their intention after their next acquisition just my own personal thought was it could be a bargaining chip

 

[Bernd Lauert]

The problem is that it can "restrict access" of a popular franchise on competing cloud services.

But does this impact the market so significantly that Sony or anyone else is not able to compete because of it? Of course not, not even close.

 

[Banjo64]

It's kind of a disingenuous argument, though. Most of the other big publishers are already in the subscription service space. EA, Ubisoft and Sony are already there. Sony literally could copy Gamepass at any time by bringing first party to their service day 1 and they would probably beat Microsoft at sub service gaming.

EA, Ubisoft and Sony wouldn't have a catalogue featuring CoD, Zenimax and Microsoft Game Studios' releases. CoD sells more alone than any of Sony's exclusives every single year. None of those companies have their own cloud infrastructure either, so as the CMA say, it's a combination of all 3 factors. Library, infrastructure, existing brand power.

Why not?

Sony has said they won't put first party games on psplus day one.

It's sonys own fault, not Microsoft's.

If Sony would make more money following Microsoft's path, why haven't they done it? If they've crunched the numbers and calculated that they'd be losing hundreds of millions of pounds annually by putting games on PS Plus day 1, you think that's a sensible decision?


Listen, anyone is free to check out my post history, when Zenimax and AKB's acquisitions were announced I basked in the tears of Sony fanboys along with the best of them.

However I won't play along with people who think that Brazil and Saudi Arabia are sound and that true scrutiny shouldn't exist it's likely that the CMA still ratify this deal after their phase 2, but it's their job to investigate the possible future impact and the Xbox fans crying about it, and pretending not to understand basic hypotheticals, that are plainly spelled out, is the most cringe worthy display of corporate bootlicking on par with anything I've see from PS fanatics.

 

[01011001]

None of those companies have their own cloud infrastructure either, so as the CMA say, it's a combination of all 3 factors. Library, infrastructure, existing brand power.

other companies do tho, Amazon and Google for example. Nintendo and Sony aren't the only competitors in the gaming sphere. mobile gaming dwarfs all 3

 

[The_Mike]

If Sony would make more money following Microsoft's path, why haven't they done it? If they've crunched the numbers and calculated that they'd be losing hundreds of millions of pounds annually by putting games on PS Plus day 1, you think that's a sensible decision?

So you're telling me because it's not financially good for Sony, but Microsoft can do it, then Microsoft isn't allowed to do it?

That's not how competition, or logic works.

By that logic then Sony isn't allowed to have their games as exclusive titles because they are considered better exclusives than Microsoft's.

Is a choice, financially beneficial or not.

You can't kill competition by not wanting to offering the same.

 

[Banjo64]

other companies do tho, Amazon and Google for example. Nintendo and Sony aren't the only competitors in the gaming sphere. mobile gaming dwarfs all 3

Yes, but Amazon and Google don't have the potential library of ABK, Zenimax and XGS - so again, it's a combination of all 3 factors.

 

[Banjo64]

So you're telling me because it's not financially good for Sony, but Microsoft can do it, then Microsoft isn't allowed to do it?

I'm telling you that Sony can't simply choose to do something that tanks their entire organisation - as it would for most other companies.

That's not how competition, or logic works.

By that logic then Sony isn't allowed to have their games as exclusive titles because they are considered better exclusives than Microsoft's.

That's some reach

 

[01011001]

Yes, but Amazon and Google don't have the potential library of ABK, Zenimax and XGS - so again, it's a combination of all 3 factors.

Microsoft is currently the one with the smallest market share in terms of consoles, and Nintendo has no issue surviving with barely any support from Activision since forever.
these 2 factors show that this isn't really a big risk for the market.

 

[Banjo64]

Microsoft is currently the one with the smallest market share in terms of consoles,

Ok? And as stated (and proudly announced by MS regularly) Game Pass and xCloud is about so much more than console hardware.

and Nintendo has no issue surviving with barely any support from Activision since forever.

Funny choice of word that, I'd prefer all three to thrive rather than just 'survive'.

these 2 factors show that this isn't really a big risk for the market.

They don't though.

 

[onesvenus]

I don't see how, I was just reiterating what I had read about the only real need for the three major jurisdictions of the US, EU and UK needing to approve the deal for it to clear.

All regulation agencies need to approve the deal. If one of them does not it's up to Microsoft to decide what to do but that doesn't imply it's not cleared.
Again, Brazil was one of the last regulation agencies to clear the Disney deal, even after the US had approved the deal. Bob Iger itself went to Brazil to have a meeting with CADE to solve it and he left empty handed. That should tell you if it's important or not.

But if the Brazil approval had made an impact, you would expect ACTIV to trend against the market, surely, no? especially with the share price below the offer price.

I read your post as if you were implying that the stock was down because people were pessimistic on the deal

 

[01011001]

Funny choice of word that, I'd prefer all three to thrive rather than just 'survive'.

I'd say having record breaking console sales and one of your games basically permanently stuck in the top 10 monthly sales list is thriving.
whenever Nintendo loses market share it's their own fault and not an issue with any specific third party

Nintendo is absolutely killing the competition atm, with little to no Activision support

 

[Ozriel]

I don't even know what the Activison deal is even meant to achieve in that regard. By buying Activision they are going to fight the iOS and Android play store? Makes no sense at all. It's the dumbest thing I've read.

You've never heard of cloud streaming on mobile before?

 

[Banjo64]

I'd say having record breaking console sales and one of your games basically permanently stuck in the top 10 monthly sales list is thriving.
whenever Nintendo loses market share it's their own fault and not an issue with any specific third party

Nintendo is absolutely killing the competition atm, with little to no Activision support

I would agree, but your choice of word was survive. Do you think Sony should be content with just surviving if MS decide to buy Activision?

 

[01011001]

I would agree, but your choice of word was survive. Do you think Sony should be content with just surviving if MS decide to buy Activision?

I mean if they can't counter that and are really dependent on the 2 to 3 bigger games Activision releases each other year then that's kinda weak isn't it?
but that's not gonna happen.

Nintendo survives and sells more systems than ever mostly thanks to indy games and their first party titles. if Nintendo can do that then Sony can too, even tho Sony doesn't need to because their hardware can support all third party titles easily, while Nintendo's hardware needs special care by devs

 

[DarkMage619]

I would agree, but your choice of word was survive. Do you think Sony should be content with just surviving if MS decide to buy Activision?

From a regulatory perspective is it about survival or removal from the market because they cannot compete? The Brazilian agency seemed to believe competition would remain and customers are protected. That should be the primary focus for every agency not protecting Sony's market position. Sony may lose market share but won't be removed from the industry over this acquisition.

 

[Ozriel]

I mean it's pretty straight forward, if Microsoft get too big no one else will be bothered to try and crack the market in 10 or 20 years time. We've already seen Google bow out, what more evidence do you need that it's already hard to compete against the established names as is? A lack of competition ALWAYS harms the consumer.

It would have helped if you read the CADE decision thoroughly instead of dismissing their arguments as 'corrupt'.

Stadia didn't fail because they were competing against an established name. They failed because - as CADE notes - the market uptake for cloud streaming is so nascent and so small that the likes of Microsoft and Sony are bundling streaming with higher tier subscription plans to get customers.

I'm guessing CADE wrote this before Stadia decided to shutter.
Isn't that the issue? The reason why MS are even buying ABK is because creating their own development studio or partnering with publishers for that all important "exclusive content" is difficult for those behind or entering the market? Also partnering with publishers becomes even more difficult if somebody is out there buying up all the partners you try to partner with for popular content.

Stadia closing really has no impact on what they said. Losing money and struggling at the beginning is not an unknown outcome in that space for new entrants. The first Xbox entered a market dominated by Sony and Nintendo and pushed through initial losses. Google could easily have pursued the same policy with Stadia. But it's clear they weren't in for it long term.

There's still a ton of content that's not locked up yet. It wasn't that long ago that Embracer started their acquisition spree…and they've racked up an impressive IP roster.

All this is moot, anyway. COD wasn't on any streaming platform before so there's nothing being taken away from anyone. Not to mention most people will probably stick to streaming services tied to their existing console subscription bundle.

 

[Banjo64]

It would have helped if you read the CADE decision thoroughly instead of dismissing their arguments as 'corrupt'.

I don't think I did call them 'corrupt'.

Stadia didn't fail because they were competing against an established name. They failed because - as CADE notes - the market uptake for cloud streaming is so nascent and so small

That is their interpretation and as noted, it appears that they are looking no further than 6 years in to the future in their findings.

that the likes of Microsoft and Sony are bundling streaming with higher tier subscription plans to get customers.

And? Could Google not have simply bundled a Stadia tier in to one of their many Google subscriptions? Google Play Pass, YouTube Premium etc?

Stadia closing really has no impact on what they said. Losing money and struggling at the beginning is not an unknown outcome in that space for new entrants. The first Xbox entered a market dominated by Sony and Nintendo and pushed through initial losses. Google could easily have pursued the same policy with Stadia. But it's clear they weren't in for it long term.

And why is that?