Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
feynoob
Banned
Here is compiled info for those who dont want to read Sony document.
Part 1
Part 1
- The Transaction is a game-changer that poses a threat to an industry enjoyed by hundreds of millions of consumers.
- Post-Transaction, Microsoft would have the ability and incentive to exclude or restrict rivals, including PlayStation and PlayStation Plus, from having access to Call of Duty
- Consumers would be harmed. In the short-term, PlayStation users would no longer have access to Call of Duty or would be forced to spend £450 on an equivalent Xbox to play this hugely popular game on their less preferred device. In the mid-term, a significant number of PlayStation users would likely switch to Xbox and/or Game Pass
- Competition would be harmed. PlayStation's and Xbox's incentives to invest in innovation and quality improvements depend on the number of customers that competition can attract. Microsoft's foreclosure strategy would lock in many consumers to Xbox, including existing Xbox users who play Call of Duty and those switching from PlayStation to play Call of Duty
- Independent developers would be harmed. Independent developers today have two principal options: PlayStation/PlayStation Plus and Xbox/Game Pass. By making Call of Duty exclusive to Xbox/Game Pass, the Transaction would tip demand for multi-game subscription services towards Xbox/Game Pass. As Microsoft foreclosed PlayStation/PlayStation Plus, it would likely become a critical distribution channel for independent developers
- The Transaction would harm nascent competition in cloud gaming. The Decision cogently explains how the Transaction would allow Microsoft to use Activision's irreplaceable content to leverage Microsoft's "ecosystem advantages" and thereby foreclose cloud gaming at a critical point of its evolution
- Microsoft would control irreplaceable content that drives user engagement. redacted info.
- Call of duty gamers are exceptionally important to playstation. Redacted info.
- Call of duty is different- and more important to gaming platforms- than the other games Microsoft mentions.
- SIE's, Microsoft's, and Activision's documents attest to the importance of Call of duty.
- Call of duty is not replicable.
- Nintendo focuses on family-friendly games that are very different to PEGI 18 FPS games like call of duty.
- Microsoft wants Sony to become like Nintendo, so that Sony would be less close and less effective compeititor.
- Call of duty is critical to Playstation. No game has rivaled the brand loyalty and network.
- Microsoft has not commited to continue making call of duty available on Playstation and Playstation plus.
- Mult_game subscription services. MS has not agreed to make call of duty and other activision titles available on SIE Playstation Plus, While MS made it clear, they would make it available on gamepass.
- MS activision games would be available until 2027.
- Phil Spencer playbook for bethesda content is evident for activision content.
- The Circumstance That, In The Recent Console Generation, Microsoft Is Somewhat Behind SIE Does Not Prevent Anti-competitive Effects From Arising
- Microsoft's third argument on ToH1 is that "Sony is not vulnerable to a hypothetical foreclosure strategy" because "PlayStation has been the largest console platform for over 20 years" (Microsoft, para. 1.3(a)). The circumstance that Microsoft is currently somewhat behind SIE in console sales does not mean that the Transaction cannot harm competition and consumers.27 In reality, competition and consumers would be harmed in the short-term and long-term
Last edited:
GhostOfTsu
Banned
And Nintendo had RE4 exclusive, the biggest game in the franchise after the series had sold millions on Playstation. So what if RE 1 was exclusive for a couple of months?
Going back 30 years to find a "gotcha" is so lame, pathetic and desperate.
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Just look at top 10 games sold year to date
People love to hate on COD but its a monster again this year
pasterpl
Member
That's interesting, we know that ms presented deals to Sony already. Also none of the previous cod games were on any sub service.
pasterpl
Member
I know. I am buying it every year, and even enjoyed vanguard.
Topher
Identifies as young
COD is shit on by people who think the game is shit. Saying COD is shit doesn't mean not understanding the fact that COD is the bestselling game on consoles every single year.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
I've got at least four COD games w/ PS+
pasterpl
Member
That always gets me, how shit game (in their minds) can be bestselling. How they explain that to themselves? That's what interest me.
gothmog
Gold Member
This is the gem here. Xbox is trying to force Sony to allow GamePass on their console. If that happens then a PlayStation becomes more of a gaming Roku or Chromecast at that point.
GHG
Gold Member
Yep and I have a few due to Humble Monthly.
pasterpl
Member
pasterpl
Member
This would probably boost ps5 sales even more. If they could get all of the ms gamepass games. Would also mean less reasons to get Xbox hardware
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Part 2
- First, PlayStation users would be immediately and seriously harmed by Microsoft's foreclosure strategy. Specifically, PlayStation users who prefer playing Call of Duty on PlayStation would be harmed by being denied the opportunity to play Call of Duty on their device of choice. They would face two options: either to not play Call of Duty or to incur a cost of £450 to buy an equivalent Xbox console and play Call of Duty on a less preferred device at a similar quality to the level they currently enjoy. In the former case, consumers would self-evidently lose the opportunity to play one of their favourite games. In the latter case, in addition to paying for a new console that they would not otherwise have bought,28 those PlayStation users who sold their consoles in the process of switching would lose access to their current PlayStation content library, causing further consumer harm.
- MS foreclosure would startegy would prefent SIE from competiting for a large portion of console gamers.
- There is a total of 205.1 million userbase between xbox and PS.
- Without call of duty, Sony would lose those players, and not able to replace them. Which in turn affects PS developers from reaching potential customers.
- SIE would lose a significant revenue, if COD is removed. Which in turn affects future investment, due to lost funding.
- Fifth, Microsoft's statements on user numbers are unreliable. For completeness, Microsoft cites inaccurate figures on the relative positions of PlayStation and Xbox. Microsoft claims that even if all of PlayStation's MAUs that play Call of Duty left PlayStation, PlayStation would still be left with "significantly more" MAUs than Xbox (Microsoft, para. 3.19). This does not accord with SIE data. In 2021, there were, on average, million MAUs of Call of Duty (and million accounts that played Call of Duty during the year). Based on these figures, if the million MAUs switched to Xbox, PlayStation would be left with far fewer MAUs than Xbox,31 before taking into account the direct and indirect network effects that would exacerbate switching (Decision, para. 203(a); IS, para. 32
- Finally, Microsoft seeks to distract from its foreclosure strategy by suggesting that SIE "engages in conduct which is reflective of its market power" because SIE recently increased the price of PlayStation consoles (Microsoft, para. 1.3(c), second bullet). SIE strongly disputes this claim. SIE's decision to increase the recommended retail price of PlayStation 5 reflected adverse currency trends, supply shortages, and global inflation.32 Microsoft, for its part, has recently hinted at upcoming price increases for Xbox consoles and Game Pass. 33
- Theory of Harm 2: Input Foreclosure of Rival Multi-game Subscription Services 30. Under Theory of Harm 2 ("ToH 2"), the IS and Decision explain that Microsoft would have the ability and incentive to lessen current and future competition in multi-game subscription services (Decision, paras. 213-234; IS, paras. 35-36
- Activision content would be exclusive to MS gamepass, compared to pre transaction, which has equal chance on Multi-game subscription.
- SIE's documents attest to the danger of Cal of duty becoming exclusive to gamepass. Redacted info.
- SIE uses independant survey to show the affect of call of duty on gamepass (Survery was posted here, and had less than 10k users).
- Developers would also be hardmed by unequal access to call of duty on multi-game subscription services. Excluding activision content from PS plus would also affect independent game developers. Those independant developers would likely recieve worse terms for their content from MS, once MS becomes dominant.
Are you telling me that Activision didn't intend to go on sale until MS made a proposal....??? LOL. The reality is different.
That document only reflects the MS proposal. It is in the public domain and known that Activision has already explored other possibilities before.
It mean, it's not "MS bought Activision", it's "Activision agreed to MS's proposal."
Some of you want to make it look like a hostile takeover bid and it's the opposite.
And we all know what happened when MS tried that same strategy which is why they abandoned it.
Now imagine MS spending that 69B to buy that irreplaceable 3rd party content the way Sony does... Someone wants to make believe that it would seem good for them and they would not criticize it anyway LOL.
Last edited:
Kagey K
Banned
Doesn't Sony have direct clauses in the contract, to specifically deny CoD to Gamepass?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
OMG. Sony is absolutely demolishing MS arguments with the latest document.
GHG
Gold Member
Not sure where you're seeing anyone suggest it was a hostile takeover. Them agreeing to the sale isn't in question, if it were we wouldn't be here. Your statement was as follows:
As per the extensive timeline outlined in the SEC documents Phil Spencer initiated the purchase by setting up the meeting and then a subsequent one where he got his CEO involved. If what you said were true it would have been the other way round.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
The only thing that Sony demolishing in that document is itself
feynoob
Banned
Part 3
- MS advances three main arguments, which arent persuasive to the CMA.
- First, MS argues that multi-game subscription services are not a market, but a means of payment. Multi-game services arent means of payment. They are an alternative to "buy to play", which allows consumers to access broad library of video games.
- Second, MS argues that "there are not facts-anywhere-to -support(The) assertion" that activision content strategy, under which no multi-game subscription service receives preferential treatment- would change post-Transaction. MS maybe claim there are no "facts", but CMA document tells different story.
- MS argument is misconceved. Today, no multi-game subscription services has an advantage by being to offer activision irreplaceable content, because activision has not made it available in any multi-game subscription service.
- Giving gamepass exclusive access to call of duty and other activision games would title the demand for multi-game subscription services, irreparable in MS favour. For this alone, the transaction should be challenged.
- Third, MS demand for multi game subscription would not tip towards gamepass, because MS would also make gamepas availabe on Playstation. Making it available there would make it harder for the rivals to compete. This solution is hallow, considering PS plus isnt permited to be available on Xbox
Little Chicken
Member
The Sony response is like witnessing a gaming forum member meltdown thread.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
An account suicide thread.
gothmog
Gold Member
Maybe. Or Xbox forces PlayStation Plus onto GamePass. Similar deal as EAPlay. Still might be worth it, though.
When you defend that "MS bought Activision" as if the operation had been the sole will of MS. That's what was hinted at here when I responded.
What you will demonstrate is the proposal, the negotiation is a different thing. And it is public domain and known that Activision began negotiations and explored offers before accepting the final offer from MS. It's not that hard to understand, just a matter of accepting reality.
GHG
Gold Member
My guy, the reality is what's in the SEC document. You want to sit there and suggest otherwise with no credible sources to back you up. For what reason I don't know.
If the information in that document is anything other than accurate then that would be securities fraud.
pasterpl
Member
Second part contradicts the first sentence.
pasterpl
Member
If I would be ms I would allow it without allowing gamepass on playstation, definitely would boots Xbox sales
feynoob
Banned
Part 4
- Theory of Harm 3: Foreclosure of Cloud-Gaming Service Providers Through Leveraging Microsoft's Ecosystem
- Under ToH3, the Decision found that Microsoft would leverage its broad multi-product ecosystem – including its leading cloud platform (Azure); its leading gaming system (Xbox); and its dominant PC OS (Windows) – together with Activision's gaming content to "strengthen network effects, raise barriers to entry, and hence foreclose rivals in cloud gaming services" (Decision, para. 239; IS, para. 39). The Decision further found that Microsoft would have the ability and incentive to engage in a variety of foreclosure strategies, including: withholding Activision's content; denying or degrading rival cloud gaming providers' access to Azure; and denying or degrading rivals' access to Windows (Decision, para. 275
- Microsoft has a structural advantage in cloud-computing services because of its deep and broad ecosystem advantages. Microsoft's success with Azure and Windows (the dominant PC operating system on which the vast majority of PC games are played) will give it opportunities to undercut SIE on cloud streaming for console and PC. Microsoft has already publicly trumpeted its advantages in cloud gaming. As Phil Spencer remarked: "When you talk about Nintendo and SIE, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward… That's not to disrespect Nintendo and SIE, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position."43 Since then, Google has announced that it is closing its cloud gaming service, Stadia, including because of an absence of critical content.44 Amazon, for its part, has struggled to gain traction in cloud gaming
- The effects of a Microsoft foreclosure strategy in cloud gaming would harm consumers and game publishers. Cloud gaming is "at an early stage of its development" and strengthening network effects and raising barriers to entry "could affect all current and potential rivals" (IS, para. 44). This would deny customers the benefit of competition between cloud gaming platforms or, at the very least, "a longer period of competition between platforms vying to be the 'winning platform' in these markets" (IS, para. 44). For game publishers, the CMA explained that if Microsoft were to become a gatekeeper between publishers and gamers, that would ultimately give Microsoft the ability to "control access to gamers, charge high fees for game distribution, and manipulate game rankings" (Decision, para. 293
- SIE agrees with thorough analysis in the decision and the framework for assesment set out in the IS. If consumed MS would be in a unique postion, where they are the only company with sole control over such a large library, and the levers to determine how competition plays out in the nascent space, thanks to its windows OS and Azure platform. Redacted info.
- In response to that, MS raises four main points, None is sound.
- First MS argues that CMA theory of harm is "Novel and without precedent". There is nothing novel about a leveraging theory of harm, whereby a digital platform uses existing advantages in one area to harm competition in a nascant space. MS is under invistigtation for leveraging practices involving Azure and Windows.
- Second MS argues that "Consumer adoption for cloud gaming remains low". Competition is worthy of protection, as competition among services that already enjoy substantial usage, as MS knows well.
- Third, MS argues that in the counterfactual, Activision content would not be available on cloud gaming services. That is misconceived. A with multi-game subscription services, Activision content in the counterfactual might become available to cloud gaming services in the future on equal terms. Under the transaction, MS would have the ability and incentivie to keep that content exclusively to itself.
- Fourth, MS argues that "It does not have a market-leading position in gaming to protect". But this theory of harm is about MS using its leading position in PC OSs, cloud platform services, and gaming content(Via acquired Activision content) to foreclose competition in cloud gaming. There is no requirement in such as leveraging theory for there to be market power in the foreclosed product, as MS well knows. MS publically explained the link between "Content, community, and cloud". MS already has the community(via xbox, windows and linkedln), and the cloud(Via Azure), and through the transaction, it would add Activision's vast content to its existing propreitary games, giving it everything it would need to tip demand and its favour and foreclose actua or potential rivals.
- Conclusion, The Transaction threatens the gaming ecosystem at a critical moment. It would take an irreplaceable gaming franchise, Call of Duty, out of independent hands and combine it with Microsoft's highly-successful gaming system (Xbox), leading multi-game subscription service (Game Pass), dominant PC OS (Windows), and leading cloud platform (Azure). The only way to preserve robust competition and protect consumers and independent developers is to ensure that Activision remains independently owned and controlled
ChorizoPicozo
Member
OmG why is MS so desperate?!
ChiefDada
Member
In conjunction, that is the issue as I mentioned yesterday.
Nothing wrong with raising prices if the quality improves as well, or at the very least stays the same.
MasterCornholio
Member
Thought they still did marketing deals. Like with The Medium for example.
No idea where this idea that Microsoft doesn't engage in them comes from.
My guy, no one has said that this document is not real, it is being said that it is only the official proposal after negotiations. Or are you saying that the operation began with that official purchase proposal?
I repeat, the reality is that Activision explored other offers before. He explored other possibilities before MS. MS did not "bought Activision", MS does not buy what it wants and when it wants... and that is what the answer I answered implied.
Ass of Can Whooping
Member
ChorizoPicozo
Member
I dunno why MS and his green influencers are so angry/scared or frustrated. Sony has nothing in their arguments.
This deal is going to be approved and it will be great if gets approved without any concession.
But if Jim Ryan is able to poop in the Xbox Party. Jim should be awarded some kind of trophy or some shit like that.
This deal is going to be approved and it will be great if gets approved without any concession.
But if Jim Ryan is able to poop in the Xbox Party. Jim should be awarded some kind of trophy or some shit like that.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
This is fucking gold. Did no one from Sony double check this before going live or was this done before Sony put its console prices up and game prices, introduced more expensive playstation plus?
feynoob
Banned
MS response document part 1
- The Merger is fundamentally pro-competitive because it increases competition in a market long dominated by Sony. Xbox plans to make the Call of Duty franchise available to more gamers in more ways than would have been the case in the counterfactual
- The addition of Activision's content to Xbox will, if anything, increase Xbox's chances of being able to compete more successfully with Sony's PlayStation
- Activision content is popular and loved by millions of gamers worldwide. That said, neither Activision nor Call of Duty have significant market power or the status of an "important input". All of the CMA's theories of harm in this case are premised on one overarching concern: that Activision's game catalogue – in particular the Call of Duty franchise – is so important that it will enable Xbox to foreclose its competitors in gaming. But that is false by any objective measure.
- • Activision's share in console game publishing is very low, at ca. [10-20]%. •
- Activision's share based on monthly active users ("MAUs") for console games is similarly only ca. [10-20]%.
- • Activision published only two of the top 20 console titles in the UK in 2021 and its share of so-called 'AAA' console games is equally low.
- • Even focussing narrowly on the 'shooter' genre, Activision would not have the necessary market power to foreclose the downstream market, as the genre accounts for less than a quarter of console publishing revenues.
- • Given the incredible array of popular and diverse gaming content that is available to market participants, no title or publisher has ever had sufficient market power in the 30-plus years of console gaming to lead to competitive foreclosure
- Nor is Call of Duty unique, as compared to the many other games which are loved by gamers worldwide, as evidenced by user, industry and social media rankings. To name just a few examples:
- • Call of Duty is consistently outranked in user polls on PlayStation (e.g., Sony's annual "game of the year" poll has consistently named games other than Call of Duty as their "game of the year" or "most anticipated game").
- • Call of Duty is consistently outranked on Metacritic scores (e.g., Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War was ranked number 18 in 2020 (no. 126 in all-time scores) and Call of Duty: Vanguard was ranked number 73 in 2021 (no. 159 in the alltime scores)).
- • Call of Duty is consistently outranked in industry reviews of the top games (e.g., reviews published by IGN, USA Today, Business Insider, Game Rant and others
- Call of Duty does not drive social media conversations. There were more than 2.4 billion tweets about gaming in 2021 and yet, no Call of Duty title made it into the top ten "Most Talked About Video Games" on Twitter last year
GHG
Gold Member
You're clearly not understanding what you're looking at. The document I linked was provided to the SEC from Activision Blizzard to then be passed on to shareholders of ATVI.
It's a 14a which means it is addressed to shareholders in order to provide them with information for them to vote for or against something. In this case its for the sale of ATVI to Microsoft.
If anything in that document is inaccurate or if key information is ommited then that would be securities fraud.
So, if you have some credible information that goes against what is documented with the filing to the SEC then write to the SEC, I'm sure they will be more than interested to hear it.
intheinbetween
Member
I read that with a different meaning. MS would release CoD on Game Pass but not on PS Plus, shocking.
feynoob
Banned
Part 2
- Even if Microsoft were to withdraw or degrade Call of Duty from/on PlayStation (quod non), the Panel would have to believe that Sony would – as a result of the loss or degradation of one game franchise on its console – go from being the clear market leader for over two decades to being placed at "such a disadvantage that [its] ability to compete is substantially limited". This is not plausible
- In addition to being the dominant console provider, Sony is also a powerful game publisher
- PlayStation has more than double the MAUs (close to 60 million more) of Xbox. Less than []% of PlayStation's MAUs play Call of Duty
- Most gamers on consoles do not play Call of Duty
- Call of Duty gamers are neither 'special' nor 'unique' in terms of either their spending or user engagement as compared to gamers that favor other popular franchises
- Call of Duty does not drive platform adoption
- For the vast majority of gamers, Call of Duty is a small component of their overall gaming consumption
- Sony was not foreclosed when certain Call of Duty content was exclusive to Xbox
- Similarly, highly successful gaming platforms like Nintendo and Steam have prospered without access to Call of Duty
- It is therefore inherently implausible that withholding or degrading one game could have a foreclosing effect on downstream console competition, i.e., in the sense that it could undermine to an appreciable extent the ability of Sony to remain competitive going forward
- It is equally implausible that withholding from or degrading Activision content on competing multi-game subscription services would have anticompetitive effects on any markets concerned by the Merger
- Multi-game subscription services are a means of payment – not a market
- Without the Merger, Activision content would not be available on multigame subscription services. The Merger can therefore not make competitive conditions worse, under any circumstances
- Activision does not make its games (including Call of Duty) available in any meaningful sense to any multi-game subscription services, nor is there any evidence that this is likely to change in the foreseeable future.2 It is therefore not possible that Activision games are an "important input" for subscription services or that such services could be "foreclosed" by not having access to them post-Merger
- Activision's ordinary course internal business documents, as well as the sworn testimony of its executives, has made clear that there are no plans to do so in the future absent the Merger. Activision is concerned that participation in subscription services could impact its [] and would lead to brand dilution and cannibalisation of buy-to-play sales (especially of new releases). This reflects Activision's view that even if the subscription business model were to grow, the []. This has been a fundamental impediment to publishers more generally agreeing to place their content on subscription services, a stance which is not going to change in the future
- Even if Microsoft could, in theory, foreclose PlayStation Plus (quod non) it would have no effect on competition because Microsoft's Game Pass and PlayStation Plus are primarily and predominantly a way to access games on their respective consoles
- Other established and prominent subscription services are offered by gaming companies with significant and popular first-party content on both console and PC
- The Merger's impact on multi-game subscription services is yet another example of its pro-competitive nature
- In any event, the reality is that Game Pass has no market power, a prerequisite for any hypothetical foreclosure strategy.
- Alleging that competitive harm would result from the Merger disregards input foreclosure case law
- Input foreclosure cases that the CMA has brought over the last six years have in each case involved the acquisition of substantial market power
- Xbox's and Activision's market shares are well below market share levels that have given rise to concerns in previous CMA Phase 2 input foreclosure decisions
- The CMA even acknowledges that the Merger does not give rise to concerns on the basis of market shares.
Simple, that MS does not buy the Studios when it wants to take away from Sony what it needs to be competitive (which is what your answer implied).
MS buys Studios that want to be bought and Activision wanted to be bought. Very simple
feynoob
Banned
Part 3
- Finally, the CMA's allegation that because Microsoft will own Call of Duty it could foreclose cloud gaming rivals by leveraging its cloud and PC operating system businesses has no basis in fact or law.
- Call of Duty, and Activision games more generally, are not important enough to make or break cloud gaming competitors. Just as is the case with respect to console rivals, Microsoft's cloud gaming competitors, including Nvidia, Amazon and Netflix, will continue to have access to a large, diverse, and high-quality pool of content for their cloud streaming services. Nvidia GeForce Now has partnered with multiple PC digital storefronts, including Steam, Epic Games Store, GOG.com and Ubisoft Connect, to make over a thousand games available. Amazon has its own first-party games, as well as over a hundred third-party titles including Assassin's Creed: Valhalla, Far Cry 6, Immortals Fenyx Rising¸ Resident Evil, A Plague Tale and many others
- Activision games are even less important for cloud gaming than they are for console gaming because Activision titles, such as Call of Duty are inherently challenging titles to stream. Minimising latency is critical to the gamer experience and high latency can have a significant detrimental effect on the quality of gameplay, particularly for competitive multiplayer gameplay – a central element of the appeal of Call of Duty. Activision has determined that [].
- While Activision has []. [], in late 2019 and early 2020, Activision participated in a closed environment beta test of Nvidia's GeForce Now cloud gaming service, but Nvidia made Activision's content available on Nvidia's live platform without ABK's consent. Activision required Nvidia remove access to its content, which Nvidia did. Nvidia was not foreclosed by the withdrawal of Activision titles and instead pointed customers to the wide array of alternative content available on its service – "we have over 1,500 games that developers have asked to be on-boarded to the service. Look for weekly updates as to new games we are adding".3
- Given the technological limitations described above, Activision has never distributed its content on any cloud streaming platform, and its titles are not authorized on any cloud streaming platform today. Nor does Activision have any plans to make its content available on third-party cloud gaming services. For that reason alone, the Merger cannot possibly foreclose any cloud gaming rivals. Activision content would not be available to them absent the Merger
- In any event, while the CMA alleges that Microsoft has an advantage over rivals in cloud gaming by having a broad "multi-product ecosystem", including a leading cloud platform (Azure) and PC operating system (Windows). Microsoft's cloud gaming service Xbox Cloud Gaming does not use either of these offerings. Instead, it uses bespoke Xbox console infrastructure which is not provided by Azure. Azure does not have an infrastructure-as-a-service ("IaaS") offering for cloud gaming []. Azure is incentivized to provide IaaS to cloud gaming providers in order to secure economies of scale and scope, but has only a limited number of customers which multi-source from other IaaS providers. Microsoft licenses Windows to cloud computing providers predominantly through resellers and prices do not depend on the industry and use-case
feynoob
Banned
cont part 3
- The Issues Statement fails to recognise that the Merger aims to facilitate the adoption of an innovative service, cloud gaming, for which there is currently no proven consumer demand. It also fails to recognise the challenges involved in bringing cloud gaming to market. Cloud gaming is small and uncertain to succeed. It is a new and immature technology which faces significant challenges.
- • By 2025, Xbox expects cloud gaming to account for only []% of the total consumer spend on gaming. Gamers will continue to download the vast majority of the games they play on PC and console. Xbox supports cloud gaming as a means of delivering games to additional devices (e.g., mobile devices, smart TVs). [].
- • Similarly, Google—an early entrant into the cloud gaming space, with extremely deep pockets—recently announced that it is shutting down its Stadia cloud gaming service on 18 January 2023. Despite having had a head start over Microsoft, Nvidia and Amazon, Google determined that there is not enough gamer interest in its Stadia service to justify continuing to support it. Google's experience with Stadia shows that cloud gaming is still an experimental business model and that there is no guarantee it will ever catch on with users
intheinbetween
Member
So, lets say the deal doesn't go through and MS invest money on getting exclusivity over the next 10 year for CoD from ABK releasing all CoD titles and exclusive content to Game Pass subscribers, would Sony be doomed?
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
It is going to go through. There are no hypotheticals.
- Status