Abk and MS still believe 100% this deal will go on.
Fey you are totally one of those guys who buys both jerseys before the championship game lol
On the sub or on buy to stream? For the buy to stream I can only name one of the big games, RDR2. For the sub that didn't require buying games I had to look (don't remember any big releases being advertised at all) but they had the usual limited library, Dirt 5, Terraria, Wreckfest, ARK, a bunch of small indie titles, etc.Be honest, without googling it can you even say what was available? I sure as shit can't because why would I buy a game that is purely available in the cloud?
Not according to the internal communications that were posted earlier.Abk and MS still believe 100% this deal will go on.
Nobody wanted Stadia and you seem to not understand why. Nobody wants a bespoke streaming service where you have to buy your own games. Stadia failed because it was trying to get into gaming and their customers all already have Xboxes and PlayStations and computers, all of which have the same games that Stadia does. Nobody is gonna pay Google money for that service.Why do you think that is though. Content on their subs mostly made them less attractive. They couldn't secure content publishers to offer their games for their subscription , a platform further crippled for content because their servers don't run MS windows so required developers to put in work to make a port which they didn't do for the install base.
They were doing it because in 2012 they had their lowest install base hardware and were taking losses. they were trying to get customers without having to rely on PS3 sales. When PS4 sold well their cloud expansion was less important to them but was and is still there. Why do you think nobody else is taking it seriously other than MS or nVidia?
Hmmm…. K?VR's been around since the 1960's, a decade isn't that long.
Not according to the internal communications that were posted earlier.
Worse than nothing, if Xbox fanboy theories are correct, they might have curtailed a lot of their showcases and marketing etc just to look weak enough for this to pass and they lost a ton of share and maybe even some potential GP growth because of it.Microsoft is flailing because they're staring down a $3 billion check they have to write to Activision and get nothing for it.
Both Kotick and Spencer talked to their underlings (Kotick via memo, Spencer had a talk I think) nd kept their options open on the idea of still proceeding with the merger.
If MS actually cared about investing in the UK they could fund a startup studio creating jobs and new innovative IP, then maybe buy them even. Instead they're buying the biggest 40+yr old US publisher, calling it innovation, and somehow it being blocked is showing that nobody would care about a startup in the UK.There is still a chance it will go through after the appeal. As there has been some criticism of the cma in mainstream media, as some feel it gives a bad signal to tech industry about investing in the uk. So watch this space, it's not over yet.
This is the only jersey that you can see me wearing.Fey you are totally one of those guys who buys both jerseys before the championship game lol
Worse than nothing, if Xbox fanboy theories are correct, they might have curtailed a lot of their showcases and marketing etc just to look weak enough for this to pass and they lost a ton of share and maybe even some potential GP growth because of it.
They skipped the entirety of the Game Awards, that can not be understated.
Both Kotick and Spencer talked to their underlings (Kotick via memo, Spencer had a talk I think) nd kept their options open on the idea of still proceeding with the merger.
The litmus test on this imo is what gets announced in their next showcase, if there are a lot of close and actualk release dates (within 1 year from the show) and solid gameplay footage then it's closer to being true than not, if not, then it is just more Xbox fan waffle.That's a ridiculous gamble for a company already clearly struggling to get games out.
Only if you believe in the future of gaming streaming...wasn't the gaming community laughing at Microsoft when started marketing the xCloud?If you don't think the nascent market of Cloud gaming is a good enough reason to sink this deal, then let me attempt to try and contextualize it for you. I'm sure I won't necessarily change your mind with what i'm saying, but I hope it at least gives some context to others paying attention.
- One of the blunders of regulators in the last 20 years on the corporate M&A stage is that many politicians and political bodies and regulatory agencies all rubber stamped deals on topics they really didn't understand. In the 2000s and 2010s, when things like Facebook and Google began emerging deals such as FB acquiring WhatsApp & Insta, the plethora of acquisitions that Google did or the various search-related companies they bought, we can now look back and see that these deals essentially created these giant technological monoliths, who are stifling innovations in their various sectors. You can ask any of the biggest minds in WebDev, for example, and they will tell you full stop that Google is the internet - if your page isn't showing up on the first few results of a google search, it may as well not exist; this was not always the case. Facebook's reach is so ridiculous it shapes geopolitical events. Regulatory agencies NEVER had the foresight that these sorts of things could come from unchecked M&A in the technology sector. A few of the more well funded regulatory groups have now begun catching up to that fact.
- So, we have this nascent technology right, Cloud Game Streaming. Its a market that every analyst and almost all major game pubs have agreed can one day be the future of games distribution. Is it there right now? Absolutely not. When WhatsApp was acquired by FB, was it anywhere near the global communication tool it is today? Ofc not. And we have seen how bad thats turned out. This is the exact type of scenario the CMA, the FTC, and the EC want to avoid. Now I know - cloud streaming is not a big market now; why should that affect this deal? And MS is the only one who has dumped money into this market recently; why are they being punished?
- The truth on MS' involvement in the Cloud market is, unfortunately, more nuanced than the surface level observation would allow. One of the major differences that MS has employed in their approach to content distribution in Cloud is to instead focus on a subscription model as the primary entry point for consumers. A subscription that is tied into services on several other devices and platforms, aka, a vertical integration. This is a tremendous advantage that no other competitor save for Sony can leverage, but there is something else to this. Game Pass, and Game Pass Ultimate, are tremendous loss leading services. Very few other companies have the capital to weather the costs of having to host all of those data centers, and can then just distribute the content out, essentially for free to the consumer, for as long as MS has.
- Taking the above point, then look at Google. Now, I don't want to paint Google as some company down on their luck, cause they clearly aren't. Theres a few facts to understand about Stadia though: many observers for Cloud game streaming all agreed that Stadia's solution was technically superior to xCloud. This isn't really a point that was up for debate. So they had technological innovation. They didn't have a console userbase they could leverage, and they didn't have a pre-existing subscriber base that they could vertically integrate into this market. And to top it all off, Microsoft owns the data-centers for their cloud network, a distinct advantage on the operational cost side that no one else save for Amazon could emulate. Google, because of the business realities they faced, needed to sell licenses to games in their ecosystem individually, and needed to build up a subscription service from scratch, without having a content pipeline all their own that could allow them to have a content foothold right from the start.
- Take all that into account: a corporation like Google needed a vertically integrated subscriber base going into the market, a in-house content pipeline that was mature and regularly releasing content, and they needed a business structure that could allow them to primarily give out license access to games at a tremendous loss leading pace, while also finding a way to subsidize the hosting costs like MS can, all so they could be AT EQUAL FOOTING with the market advantages that Microsoft inherently has by just existing. All that before you even consider that Stadia was largely considered to be a superior technical solution to xCloud, so even innovation wasn't enough to give them market leverage.
- As we all know, Google had to close up shop in the Cloud gaming sector rather than continue to burn cash in order to operate in it. One of the factors in this regulatory fight that everyone seems blissfully content with ignoring, is that Google was against the ATVI merger (one of the few public companies who were - we now know several 3rd parties were as well), and publicly stated that one of the reasons they had to exit the Cloud gaming market, was due to Microsoft's overwhelming market advantages. The CMA not only agreed with Google, but reinforced that finding in their Preliminary Findings.
- Okay - but is that alone reason enough to kill the ATVI deal? That depends on your perspective, but its unquestionable that if Stadia died given these conditions, then Microsoft getting an even stronger leverage on content, which primarily drives gaming markets in general, could make them almost impossible to match on the content side.
- So why don't we just take on this potential Microsoft issue someday if it does present a market problem should the Cloud gaming market get more adoption in the future? Anyone who has followed Mergers & Acquisitions will tell you - breaking up a company after the fact to create an equal playing field in a market is nearly impossible. Once the merger goes through, its almost impossible to roll it back. And in the meantime - whose to say that Microsoft isn't already stifling potential innovation in said sector? Why should they be allowed to get even bigger, in that case?
But you're supposed to have solid grounds for calling off the deal and their "cloud gaming" answer is complete bs and everyone knows it.
I'm still pissed at Sony for putting WAY too much focus into Call of Duty. I feel like that distracted people (looking at the FTC) from actual antitrust issues with this deal, such as Microsoft's cloud gaming dominance.
Only if you believe in the future of gaming streaming...wasn't the gaming community laughing at Microsoft when started marketing the xCloud?
Now they are all screaming...
Microsoft's 'good guy' approach frays in UK gaming battle
Microsoft's charm offensive with the world's governments is starting to lose some of its luster as the software giant is confronting its toughest antitrust scrutiny since co-founder Bill Gates was in charge.
A blow came this week when British regulators said they would block Microsoft's planned $69-billion takeover of video game maker Activision Blizzard, threatening to undermine what could be the priciest tech acquisition ever.
Microsoft's policy chief responded by calling it a "bad day for Britain" that could make it an unattractive place to do business and warned Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's government "it needs to look hard" at the role of its antitrust regulator.
"This decision, I have to say, is probably the darkest day in our four decades in Britain," the company's president, Brad Smith, told BBC Radio 4. "It does more than shake our confidence in the future of the opportunity to grow a technology business in Britain than we've ever confronted before."
The sharp tone marked a shift for Microsoft, and Smith in particular, who joined the company in 1993 and helped defend it from antitrust enforcers in the U.S. and Europe who targeted the company's personal computer software empire centered around the Windows operating system.
"Basically, this is Microsoft and Brad Smith throwing their toys out of the pram after they didn't get the decision they wanted after all the lobbying they did," said Max von Thun, director of the Europe office of the Open Markets Institute, a proponent of stronger antitrust enforcement.
After legal battles starting in the late 1990s, Microsoft came close to having to break up its business but ended up agreeing to concessions instead. It was eclipsed for a time by rivals like Google, Facebook and Amazon, which drew closer scrutiny from both Wall Street and regulators. Now, it's back, both as a powerhouse in sectors such as artificial intelligence and cloud computing and as a target for antitrust enforcement.
"They're struggling to maintain that 'good guy' reputation," von Thun said.
After adopting a confrontational attitude toward regulators at the turn of the century, Microsoft's senior leaders, led by Smith, have spent years crafting a friendlier and collaborative approach, said William Kovacic, former chair of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
"That generated a great deal of goodwill for them around the world," Kovacic said. "They're seen as being in a different category than the other well-known information technology giants. They're seen as being more reasonable, thoughtful."
But it's not just Microsoft that has changed. Behind the heightened attention on technology companies is a belief that regulators were too weak over the past two decades in preventing monopolies. Kovacic said the "halo effect" of pitching itself as a good partner with governments only goes so far if the regulator believes a deal could harm competition. Not only that, but some of the dozens of nations with antitrust laws are increasingly talking with each other.
"A number of jurisdictions are coming to realize that their effectiveness increases if they operate as a coalition," Kovacic said. "They share thoughts about strategy. They share thoughts about timing."
In his comments to the BBC, Smith said the "English Channel has never seemed wider" as he compared the United Kingdom unfavorably with regulators for the 27-nation European Union, who are due to make a decision on the Activision deal in May.
Smith said that "people are shocked, people are disappointed" by the U.K. decision. Microsoft and Activision have vowed to appeal.
The company may end up with a more favorable ruling in Brussels, but Microsoft still has to contend with the FTC, which has challenged the deal in the U.S. and is taking the company to trial in August.
"We're not alone," Sarah Cardell, chief executive of Britain's Competition and Markets Authority, told BBC 4′s Today program of her agency's decision and the pending FTC lawsuit. "There is a lot of alignment there."
Cardell defended the decision, saying the U.K. is "absolutely open for business" and the regulator wants "to create an environment where a whole host of different companies can compete effectively, can grow and innovate."
The regulator's concern was over cloud gaming, or games streamed over the internet, which represents a tiny fraction of the industry today but where Microsoft, owner of the Xbox game system, already has the most powerful platform and would become more so with the Activision takeover, making it harder for other platforms to compete, Cardell said.
Macquarie Group analyst Sarah Hindlian-Bowler said it will "be challenging, but possible" for Microsoft to complete its Activision takeover without the U.K.'s support. She also said it made sense for Smith to call out the CMA, a relatively new body formed several years before Britain's exit from the EU.
"Microsoft is dancing an incredibly delicate ballet," Hindlian-Bowler said. "I think the aggressive comments from Microsoft really are intended to get British lawmakers and the British people to be really aware that this body, that I think is attempting to do good, may actually do more to set the U.K. back."
Microsoft has long pitched itself as a government partner, working with local governments from Wisconsin to Poland to build the data centers that power its cloud computing business and touting its ability to defend cybersecurity, including in places like Ukraine. It's proposed regulations to safeguard artificial intelligence and data privacy, though sometimes at the expense of more data-hungry rivals like Google and Facebook parent Meta.
Microsoft also has faced other scrutiny, including complaints to European regulators that it is leveraging its position to lock customers into its Azure computing platform or bundling its Teams communications software with the rest of its Office suite of workplace products. And while Microsoft has endorsed broad AI safeguards, the rapid commercialization of ChatGPT-like products could bring about conflicts for the company amid a growing push to rein in the technology.
Its not a matter of 'if you believe in the future of game streaming'. Clearly the market believes in it, since every analyst is bullish on it and most every games publisher is actively investing or entering said market. It hasn't fully taken off yet, thats fine, but according to the CMA, the vertical integrations and inherent advantage MS possess within that market are already anti-competitive enough.Only if you believe in the future of gaming streaming...wasn't the gaming community laughing at Microsoft when started marketing the xCloud?
Now they are all screaming...
Only if you believe in the future of gaming streaming...wasn't the gaming community laughing at Microsoft when started marketing the xCloud?
Now they are all screaming...
There was Stadia Pro which didn't require buying games, Luna which doesn't require it, PSNow which didn't require it.Nobody wanted Stadia and you seem to not understand why. Nobody wants a bespoke streaming service where you have to buy your own games. Stadia failed because it was trying to get into gaming and their customers all already have Xboxes and PlayStations and computers, all of which have the same games that Stadia does. Nobody is gonna pay Google money for that service.
Thats a shitty deal.
But if you had told me A.I would be where it is at the beginning of 2023 I wouldn't believe it, so who knows what's around the corner for that tech.
Still feel that Stadia was the biggest contributor to Stadia's death.Also MS acquiring Bethesda contributed to Stadia's death.
I don't think the CMA or CAT would rule against Microsoft because "their feelings were hurt". The CMA is doing what they think is best but if Microsoft convinces the CAT that the CMA's decision wasn't rational, due to coming to their conclusions based on very little evidence, the CMA can't just double down.I'm not sure what you're alluding too here. But as a UK citizen you should know that we don't take kindly to being slighted or belittled by foreign organisations. Least of all Microsoft who regularly come up in our UK discussions of tax evasion and anti trust behaviour.
Lulu and Kotick have already created prejudice here via various denigrating statements about the way we govern and regulate our own economy. Essentially they've called the regulator a bitch before asking the same regulator to rule in their favour. How do you think that's going to play out here?
I think you just want to argue tbh. Stadia was a bad service, a bad product. It had content, it failed because the market they wanted to attract already had consoles and computers, why is anyone with an Xbox or a PlayStation going to buy a game on Stadia? They weren't. Google tried to position itself as a viable option to consoles and they failed miserably.There was Stadia Pro which didn't require buying games, Luna which doesn't require it, PSNow which didn't require it.
They had a content issue on those subs, and you're kind of just agreeing with the CMA here. The CMA said MS' agreements/remedies concentrated too much on buying your own games (which is what nvidia Now is) and were too limited. The CMA also understand the importance of big content to attract you to services like you do. If now or in ten years COD, Overwatch, WoW etc were only on one service who already has 60% of the market which service do you think people would go for? The content is important to a service being 'not good'.
Except its exceedingly clear to the folks who have read the CMA's findings that they had an absolute truck load of evidence. They had an unbelievable amount of data from several market participants and market analysts. They didn't make a 400+ page paper with nothing to go off of. They are far more informed on all this than any fanboy is willing to give credit.I don't think the CMA or CAT would rule against Microsoft because "their feelings were hurt". The CMA is doing what they think is best but if Microsoft convinces the CAT that the CMA's decision wasn't rational, due to coming to their conclusions based on very little evidence, the CMA can't just double down.
You need to get out of your feelings and consider how things could play out if they go far enough.
please tell me you are joking.Hate to break it to you, but regulators and government agencies don't give a shit what fanboys argue about on some forum they've probably never heard of.
I keep hearing the same of vr and its tanking again. You need thousands of more data centers governments to help build out better internet to much of the world. So it never going to be more than a supplement to gaming. Especially with the rate of mobile chips are increasing making it moot. Microsoft has it right now it is a bonus to a subscription service.Exactly this. I was having this very conversation with a friend about how AI is suddenly a thing in the hands of the whole world. Like one day it just suddenly appeared. Seems like it only takes getting over one hurdle for something to explode. We're gonna look back to this day 10 years from now and marvel at what things were like before this happened. Cloud gaming has every bit the potential to suddenly be the way things are done.
Where?Not according to the internal communications that were posted earlier.
I keep hearing the same of vr and its tanking again. You need thousands of more data centers governments to help build out better internet to much of the world. So it never going to be more than a supplement to gaming. Especially with the rate of mobile chips are increasing making it moot. Microsoft has it right now it is a bonus to a subscription service.
All this holding back talk, be it from Sony or MS...is just BS.The litmus test on this imo is what gets announced in their next showcase, if there are a lot of close and actualk release dates (within 1 year from the show) and solid gameplay footage then it's closer to being true than not, if not, then it is just more Xbox fan waffle.
There are rumors that Sony might have been holding back too, so the same litmus test above applies to their next showcase (rumored to be in May).
They admitted they fundamentally don't know how this market would evolve. That nobody knows.Except its exceedingly clear to the folks who have read the CMA's findings that they had an absolute truck load of evidence. They had an unbelievable amount of data from several market participants and market analysts. They didn't make a 400+ page paper with nothing to go off of. They are far more informed on all this than any fanboy is willing to give credit.
I don't really have a lot of trust in fan theories like this, but it feels like forever since we got an actual big showcase from both companies.All this holding back talk, be it from Sony or MS...is just BS.
Things just don't work that way.
And to just touch on that some more, MS not showing stuff doesn't make them look weak, it makes them incompetent. MS simply dint show stuff cause what they had was not ready to be shown yet. Everyone and their dog knows that right now, MS is past the point where a they can do is just show some cinematic no gameplay trailers again... that's what they did during their last showcase.
And are people forgetting they already showed a gameplay video of one of the two biggest games they have for this year? like sony, anything else shown or new would be for next year and beyond.
like sony, anything else shown or new would be for next year and beyond.
Why are you concentrating on stadia? Did PSNow do better? Is Luna doing good as a competitor? Even if you continue to ignore the fact that Stadia had a subscription service which didn't require you to buy games just like how xcloud is offered; Why do you think Luna or PSNow didn't capture more of the market instead? You go back to any PSNow discussion and you would see everyone talking about its content in comparison.I think you just want to argue tbh. Stadia was a bad service, a bad product. It had content, it failed because the market they wanted to attract already had consoles and computers, why is anyone with an Xbox or a PlayStation going to buy a game on Stadia? They weren't. Google tried to position itself as a viable option to consoles and they failed miserably.
PsNow and xCloud and GeForce Now all make so much more sense.
Right, which isn't a pre-requisite at all; they do not need to know exactly how this market may evolve to determine whether or not something could become an issue for future competition in that market. If a regulator needed to know how a market was to evolve, then no regulator in the world would be able to make assessments on whether or not a deal is or isn't impactful in a market; they'd be unable to regulate it if they needed to exactly know how a market would evolve in order to make a ruling on it in the here and now.They admitted they fundamentally don't know how this market would evolve. That nobody knows.
Where?
Bloomberg's source claims that Spencer called an all-hands meeting today, describing how President Brad Smith was working on a response to the regulatory ruling into the early hours of the night, noting that other executive leaders like CFO Amy Hood are also working on getting the deal closed. Spencer reportedly said that while Activision "accelerates" the Xbox vision, it isn't the entirety of the Xbox vision. Spencer reportedly emphasized that Xbox's strategy will move ahead even if things do go south with the Activision acquisition. Microsoft reportedly declined to comment on the meeting.
They don't know, but they want to stop a possible future monopoly. This seems like a new trend with regulators in general, there's a feeling that a decade ago, they didn't move when they could have and it created quite a few megacorps that are capable of killing smaller businesses with a single business decisuon, look at how Microsoft fucked over Slack by bundling teams with Windows and Office 365.They admitted they fundamentally don't know how this market would evolve. That nobody knows.
I'm assuming their contracts were terminated by MS effective immediately yesterday morning and we won't be seeing them here ever again.
Nope. I'm just bored with those who call out "fanboys" simply because they don't like what was said. So why don't you try again and cut out the bullshit?
Time for bed for me either way. Do, don't. Don't care.
PSNow isn't being pushed. It's never advertised or discussed, and I'm not addressing points you make because I've already talked about them in other posts ad nauseam. There isn't much more to say about it since my thoughts are out there. Luna and Stadia are bad services, with or without sub models. They don't offer consumers something they actually want. Streaming for now is a net positive to existing services, not a service in and of itself. Is it any wonder why the services succeeding right now are bundled with other services? Game Pass gets you xCloud, PS+ gives you PSNow, GeForce Now lets you play the pc games you already own. It's almost like the services that are viable just so happen to be the ones that are actually good. Weird.Why are you concentrating on stadia? Did PSNow do better? Is Luna doing good as a competitor? Even if you continue to ignore the fact that Stadia had a subscription service which didn't require you to buy games just like how xcloud is offered; Why do you think Luna or PSNow didn't capture more of the market instead? You go back to any PSNow discussion and you would see everyone talking about its content in comparison.
I'm not sure why you're trying to push the idea that it isn't about content and ignoring the fact that all of these services offered subs with "free games", so it isn't the business model. I'd say you're looking for an argument yourself honestly.
Both companies had one major showcase last year. And both will have another major one this year. And in between those you have the smaller ones from MS where they touch on individual titles and indies and you have the state of plays from sony.I don't really have a lot of trust in fan theories like this, but it feels like forever since we got an actual big showcase from both companies.
Because PSNow is dead, maybe you missed the memo. streaming is now offered in the highest tier of PS+ which has been pushed and discussed here for over a year now.PSNow isn't being pushed. It's never advertised or discussed,
Suit yourself but I haven't read them and I don't plan to search the forum looking for them to continue a discussion that depends on them.and I'm not addressing points you make because I've already talked about them in other posts ad nauseam. There isn't much more to say about it since my thoughts are out there.
Luna and Stadia are bad services, with or without sub models. They don't offer consumers something they actually want. Streaming for now is a net positive to existing services, not a service in and of itself. Is it any wonder why the services succeeding right now are bundled with other services? Game Pass gets you xCloud, PS+ gives you PSNow, GeForce Now lets you play the pc games you already own. It's almost like the services that are viable just so happen to be the ones that are actually good. Weird.
I don't really have a lot of trust in fan theories like this, but it feels like forever since we got an actual big showcase from both companies.
We don't need to engage anymore. I've said what I needed to say. Have a good one.Because PSNow is dead, maybe you missed the memo. streaming is now offered in the highest tier of PS+ which has been pushed and discussed here for over a year now.
Suit yourself but I haven't read them and I don't plan to search the forum looking for them to continue a discussion that depends on them.
So what you're saying is consumers dont actually want cloud gaming, it's just a nice to have. That's a little different to:
"It's almost as if MS is being punished because only MS and nVidia are taking cloud gaming seriously."
I'd imagine having a cloud gaming service that concentrates solely on cloud gaming would be taking cloud gaming more seriously, not less. If you're now saying cloud gaming isn't even that important that's something different.