GHG
Member
People aren't hiding it anymore.
adamsapple
Is that twatter account still just a "news aggregator" or are we now free to ignore it for the influencer/fanboy fodder it always was?
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
adamsapple
Is that twatter account still just a "news aggregator" or are we now free to ignore it for the influencer/fanboy fodder it always was?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Is that twatter account still just a "news aggregator" or are we now free to ignore it for the influencer/fanboy fodder it always was?
Just like my dad did it for playboy, I read it just for the articles
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
April 12th and 26th are the next important dates for CMA, pending any more delays.
DEAD ORIGINAL
Member
I actually think Xbox having Cod Exclusive would be good, finally some new or old 1st person exclusives on Playstation plus how bad has the last 3 cod's been
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Pay for gold.
Guaranteed PC releases is worth it. Though the ones listed embraced PC long ago.
HoofHearted
Member
With gold - comes great responsibility….
We expect a constant stream of pikachu emoji reactions coming out of your ass now…
Last edited:
HoofHearted
Member
Just like my dad did it for playboy, I read it just for the articles
Your dad posed for Playboy?
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
HoofHearted
Member
Rac3r
Member
I'm highly against the deal, but I would be curious to see how Sony would respond to COD exclusivity (after their marketing contract is up). I think SIE pivoting to live-service/multiplayer games was the right move in hindsight, and they can stay the course for now (especially with the 10 year COD guarantee). If they stayed single-player focused and lost COD by 2025, SIE would be in a frenzy.
But MS won't make COD exclusive because apparently the revenue generated from PS users is too significant. Somehow, they even convinced the CMA that it wouldn't make financial sense to cut off PS, despite Micrsoft's insane amount of cash reserves and ability to loss-lead Game Pass. Things could change in 10 years, but right now PlayStation is cruising, and the PS6 will still have COD unless MS reneges.
That said, fresh FPS IPs from SIE are already in the works. We know they are publishing third-party shooters from Deviation and Firewalk Studios, and Bungie is working on another (likely multiplat). I'd love for one of those games to turn into a major (military shooter) franchise that challenges COD.
feynoob
Banned
Expect small publishers prices to go up these days.
Also SA isnt backing down anytime soo.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/05/saudis-savvy-games-group-acquire-mobile-games-scopely-4-9-billion/
https://www.scopely.com/en/games
Also SA isnt backing down anytime soo.
https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/05/saudis-savvy-games-group-acquire-mobile-games-scopely-4-9-billion/
https://www.scopely.com/en/games
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Still trying to figure out how they are regulating a service MS doesn't even sell on Xbox. Surely they know by now Xbox has no stand alone cloud service. They aren't Stadia.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
Yeah, the actions from regulators were nothing short but pathetic. Trying to regulate a market that hasn't even established yet? Did Nostradamus come back to life or something? Or did they discover a mine with crystal balls?
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Excellent point. Over regulating a nascent market is a good way to keep it from reaching its full potential.
ChuckeRearmed
Member
It actually reminds me of that time when there was Microsoft vs USA lawsuit and looking at it now - the points they were arguing about became completely irrelevant later. So they failed predict the future at that time.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
I admire your power with your words.
It's as if MS doesn't have any other business aside of Xbox.
Last edited:
phil_t98
#SonyToo
your just as good with your words suggesting its better to have timed exclusives rather than owning
feynoob
Banned
phil_t98
#SonyToo
feynoob
Banned
When you have no reply , post a meme
Barlow
Member
Kiraly
Member
The CMA published the responses to the addendum PF:
- Microsoft (6 pages)
The Provisional Findings Addendum confirms that Microsoft's incentives in relation to Activision content cannot be extrapolated from past conduct. The recognition that, in fact, Microsoft's past actions were not good evidence of any incentive to foreclose must also mean that the CMA should revisit its incentive analysis in relation to Theory of Harm 2 (cloud game streaming), which is focussed on qualitative evidence. At the same time, this should also cause the CMA to re-assess the current evidence available to it relating to Microsoft's incentives in relation to cloud game streaming.
The qualitative factors on which the CMA relies to question Microsoft's incentives to withhold more generally have been re-assessed and ultimately dismissed. The CMA has not undertaken any comparable exercise quantifying incentives in relation to Theory of Harm 2 as it did for Theory of Harm 1. The absence of that analysis does not somehow make the qualitative evidence in relation to Theory of Harm 2 stronger. Indeed, the absence of any, even broad, profitability analysis to support Theory of Harm 2 further undermines the conclusions. As has been explained to the CMA, [REDACTED].
The qualitative evidence available to the CMA in fact shows that Microsoft has entered into agreements with NVIDIA, Boosteroid and Ubitus, pursuant to which the distribution of Activision content on multiple cloud gaming services is provided for, should the Merger proceed. Not only does this show that Microsoft has no ability to withhold Activision content from rival cloud gaming services (given the presence of legally binding and enforceable agreements with these providers), it is also clear evidence of Microsoft's intention not to withhold Activision content from other cloud gaming services. Any analysis of both Microsoft's ability and incentive should be updated accordingly to reflect this development. Simply put, the CMA has found no incentive to withhold Activision content in relation to console, and the evidence shows it should reach the same conclusion in relation to cloud game streaming.
- Sony (10 pages)
The CMA's reversal of its position on its consoles theory of harm is surprising, unprecedented, and irrational.
The Addendum takes a diametrically opposite approach and focuses almost exclusively on a single economic model on which it places "significantly more weight" than other available evidence.
In conclusion, SIE respectfully submits that the Addendum does not justify the CMA's U-turn on the consoles theory of harm. The revised LTV model is vitiated by errors that bias the model to finding no incentive to Microsoft to foreclose. The Addendum jettisons, without sound reason, the PFs' thorough analysis of other evidence establishing Microsoft's incentives. And the Addendum's partial foreclosure discussion is based on pure speculation, rather than evidence. To reach a robust decision, the CMA should revisit its analysis of Microsoft's incentives and partial foreclosure, correcting for the errors identified in this paper.
- Joost Rietveld, Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship UCL School of Management, in Canada (23 pages)
Cloud Gaming Is Not A Distinct Market
A Typology of Cloud Gaming Services and What It Means for Microsoft's Proposed Acquisition of Activision Blizzard
There exists significant ambiguity as to whether cloud gaming should be considered a distinct market or not. The CMA's final decision on whether to block or clear Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard hinges in large part on this very question. Here, I have put forward the argument that we cannot combine all cloud gaming services into a single, clearly defined market definition. Rather, we can identify four types of gaming services that each use and rely on cloud streaming technology in different ways.
Microsoft's Game Pass offers cloud streaming as a feature; cloud gaming is an ingredient to a much broader value proposition that also includes natively run games as well as other services. Cloud-gaming-as- a-feature services arguably do not compete against cloud-gaming-as-a-complement (e.g., NVIDIA's GeForce Now, Boosteroid) and cloud-gaming-as-an-input services (e.g., Ubitus, GameStream) due to their more specialized offerings and differences in target customers. Microsoft arguably does compete against cloud-gaming-as-a-platform services such as Amazon's Luna and Blacknut—though not so much because they both stream games from the cloud, but rather because they both provide consumer-facing video game distribution platforms to overlapping customer bases.
To date, however, Activision Blizzard has not released any of its internally-developed video games on any of the cloud-gaming-as-a- platform services. Moreover, several cloud-gaming-as-a-platform services have ceased operations as this type of service has generally struggled to gain traction with consumers.
Consumers' willingness-to-pay for standalone cloud gaming services apparently is low and this is perhaps the strongest indication that cloud gaming should not be considered a distinct market: Cloud streaming is a potentially promising distribution method that will very likely continue to be used and relied upon to various extents by different companies with different offerings aimed at a diverse set of customers that can be both end users and business-to- business customers.
It behooves the CMA—and other agencies—to view it as such.
- Microsoft (6 pages)
The Provisional Findings Addendum confirms that Microsoft's incentives in relation to Activision content cannot be extrapolated from past conduct. The recognition that, in fact, Microsoft's past actions were not good evidence of any incentive to foreclose must also mean that the CMA should revisit its incentive analysis in relation to Theory of Harm 2 (cloud game streaming), which is focussed on qualitative evidence. At the same time, this should also cause the CMA to re-assess the current evidence available to it relating to Microsoft's incentives in relation to cloud game streaming.
The qualitative factors on which the CMA relies to question Microsoft's incentives to withhold more generally have been re-assessed and ultimately dismissed. The CMA has not undertaken any comparable exercise quantifying incentives in relation to Theory of Harm 2 as it did for Theory of Harm 1. The absence of that analysis does not somehow make the qualitative evidence in relation to Theory of Harm 2 stronger. Indeed, the absence of any, even broad, profitability analysis to support Theory of Harm 2 further undermines the conclusions. As has been explained to the CMA, [REDACTED].
The qualitative evidence available to the CMA in fact shows that Microsoft has entered into agreements with NVIDIA, Boosteroid and Ubitus, pursuant to which the distribution of Activision content on multiple cloud gaming services is provided for, should the Merger proceed. Not only does this show that Microsoft has no ability to withhold Activision content from rival cloud gaming services (given the presence of legally binding and enforceable agreements with these providers), it is also clear evidence of Microsoft's intention not to withhold Activision content from other cloud gaming services. Any analysis of both Microsoft's ability and incentive should be updated accordingly to reflect this development. Simply put, the CMA has found no incentive to withhold Activision content in relation to console, and the evidence shows it should reach the same conclusion in relation to cloud game streaming.
- Sony (10 pages)
The CMA's reversal of its position on its consoles theory of harm is surprising, unprecedented, and irrational.
The Addendum takes a diametrically opposite approach and focuses almost exclusively on a single economic model on which it places "significantly more weight" than other available evidence.
In conclusion, SIE respectfully submits that the Addendum does not justify the CMA's U-turn on the consoles theory of harm. The revised LTV model is vitiated by errors that bias the model to finding no incentive to Microsoft to foreclose. The Addendum jettisons, without sound reason, the PFs' thorough analysis of other evidence establishing Microsoft's incentives. And the Addendum's partial foreclosure discussion is based on pure speculation, rather than evidence. To reach a robust decision, the CMA should revisit its analysis of Microsoft's incentives and partial foreclosure, correcting for the errors identified in this paper.
- Joost Rietveld, Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship UCL School of Management, in Canada (23 pages)
Cloud Gaming Is Not A Distinct Market
A Typology of Cloud Gaming Services and What It Means for Microsoft's Proposed Acquisition of Activision Blizzard
There exists significant ambiguity as to whether cloud gaming should be considered a distinct market or not. The CMA's final decision on whether to block or clear Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard hinges in large part on this very question. Here, I have put forward the argument that we cannot combine all cloud gaming services into a single, clearly defined market definition. Rather, we can identify four types of gaming services that each use and rely on cloud streaming technology in different ways.
Microsoft's Game Pass offers cloud streaming as a feature; cloud gaming is an ingredient to a much broader value proposition that also includes natively run games as well as other services. Cloud-gaming-as- a-feature services arguably do not compete against cloud-gaming-as-a-complement (e.g., NVIDIA's GeForce Now, Boosteroid) and cloud-gaming-as-an-input services (e.g., Ubitus, GameStream) due to their more specialized offerings and differences in target customers. Microsoft arguably does compete against cloud-gaming-as-a-platform services such as Amazon's Luna and Blacknut—though not so much because they both stream games from the cloud, but rather because they both provide consumer-facing video game distribution platforms to overlapping customer bases.
To date, however, Activision Blizzard has not released any of its internally-developed video games on any of the cloud-gaming-as-a- platform services. Moreover, several cloud-gaming-as-a-platform services have ceased operations as this type of service has generally struggled to gain traction with consumers.
Consumers' willingness-to-pay for standalone cloud gaming services apparently is low and this is perhaps the strongest indication that cloud gaming should not be considered a distinct market: Cloud streaming is a potentially promising distribution method that will very likely continue to be used and relied upon to various extents by different companies with different offerings aimed at a diverse set of customers that can be both end users and business-to- business customers.
It behooves the CMA—and other agencies—to view it as such.
Haha...weak
Is that twatter account still just a "news aggregator" or are we now free to ignore it for the influencer/fanboy fodder it always was?
roosnam1980
Member
"Third, the cinematic single-player campaign length of Call of Duty is around 6-8 hours.10 The single-player campaign of Call of Duty is one of its most compelling elements that is valued by gamers.11 And it is an important element that differentiates it from other franchises, shooters or otherwise, including the only two franchises with comparable engagement to Call of Duty: FIFA and Fortnite. By assuming that no gamers with less than 10 hours of gameplay would switch, the Addendum ignores gamers who buy Call of Duty just to play the single-player campaign. But those players may still be committed to playing each new release of Call of Duty and therefore be highly relevant as potential switchers."
"By way of example, within a week of releasing Modern Warfare II, Digital Foundry, a leading analyst, compared performance on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X and S. Another industry specialist, VG Tech, compared the frame rates of Modern Warfare II across PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X.23 Studies show that these types of comparisons are highly influential. As shown in the figure below, the level of social conversation surrounding consoles and games is extremely high."
"By way of example, within a week of releasing Modern Warfare II, Digital Foundry, a leading analyst, compared performance on PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X and S. Another industry specialist, VG Tech, compared the frame rates of Modern Warfare II across PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series X.23 Studies show that these types of comparisons are highly influential. As shown in the figure below, the level of social conversation surrounding consoles and games is extremely high."
Last edited:
Sony's answer has been pretty articulated and they essentially called out strongly all the weak points of the u-turn.
The CMA has put themselves in a weak position with their 180. You just can't admit that you fucked up your maths in 9 months of investigations and then in 1 extra month you can make a credible reassessment of the situation, quickly discarding all your theories.
Since everyone can go to CAT if they feel a CMA decision is vitiated by errors and given Sony's response I think that CMA has left ample room to both Microsoft and Sony to go to CAT to ask a full re-examination.
The CMA has put themselves in a weak position with their 180. You just can't admit that you fucked up your maths in 9 months of investigations and then in 1 extra month you can make a credible reassessment of the situation, quickly discarding all your theories.
Since everyone can go to CAT if they feel a CMA decision is vitiated by errors and given Sony's response I think that CMA has left ample room to both Microsoft and Sony to go to CAT to ask a full re-examination.
12Dannu123
Member
Sony is not a party in the acquisition. So no Sony cannot go to CAT
roosnam1980
Member
"Conversations in forums, chatrooms and public gaming sessions confirm that gamers are very conscious of the slightest changes in a game's performance.24 As the highly confidential figure below shows, details such as crashes, freezes and glitches, as well as graphics and load times, have a significant impact on consumer satisfaction"
Last edited:
PropellerEar
Member
splattered
Member
Wow Sony sounding as desperate as ever... Just give up already and let's finish this shit. Getting so tired of having this drag out zzz
Last edited:
GHG
Member
What's this? Some kind of demonic cult?
Yeh Sony, why don't you just bend over and open your legs for Microsoft?
Last edited:
Correcting Idas on Era, the professor is in the UK not Canada (the street is called One Canada Square)
GHG
Member
If you mean Microsoft forcibly bending over Sony then yes, I agree. Jimbo is going down fighting.
Kiraly
Member
You were clowning on Microsoft lawyers for using Warren's articles to support their arguments some time back
But now Sony's lawyers are bringing up 10 year old Giant Bomb threads (https://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/are-gamers-to-picky-544141/) to support their argument lmfao
Wonder what your thoughts on that are?
GHG
Member
Same stance - Weak arguments and if you want your arguments to have credence they should be avoided. There are far better ways to reference your stances than using forums/twitter/journalists.
I also thought it was like that but...
How do I appeal a CMA?
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the CMA or the Secretary of State in connection with a merger situation or market investigation may make an application to the Tribunal for a review under section 120 (mergers) or section 179 (market investigations) of the Enterprise Act.
roosnam1980
Member
valid points raised by SIE i must say
phil_t98
#SonyToo
how so when they releasing such bad ports of their own games on PC?
GHG
Member
Well at least they can say they are all too familiar with the effects of bad ports on platforms that aren't their own.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked