Support NeoGAF

[StealthGoblin]

The deadline for remedies is over in the UK, so they can’t amend things now.

Indeed.

They’ve got to prove that the CMA didn’t do due dilligence. Given they reviewed over 2 million documents, consulted other regularity bodies and read thousands of submissions from the public - that seems incredibly unlikely.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

I wouldn't call them conspiracies if the agreements proposed by microsoft are these reported, considering that they don't even want to show them to the ftc and that resolution of complaints from nvidia was very fast

An independent Activision wasnt putting their games on Nvidia's service without being paid royalties and probably some other fees which Nvidia didn't want to do. Under Microsoft Nvidia had much better terms to get access to ABK content. They didn't collude to pull the rug out from regulators.

Boosteroid, Ubitus, EE and now Nware are companies that exist. They're small. Which is why they're accepting these deals from Microsoft.

To suggest Nvidia and Microsoft were in cahoots or that a number of small cloud gaming companies flat out don't exist is as crazy as saying the only reason why the CMA blocked the deal is because they accepted a bribe from Sony.

 

[PaintTinJr]

So many LOLs in this one photo.

All Microsoft have successfully done by offering deals is identify companies that Microsoft have massive influence with IMO. Quantum of Solace style



The outlier being Nintendo, but IIRC the FTC aren't able to get a copy of the contract, or aren't able to get hold of the Nintendo representative that negotiated the contract - for debriefing - to get a full picture of what (strategy against PlayStation?) was discussed beyond the contract terms.

Looking at the way the DirectXbox is tied to Windows, and Cloud and most importantly Nvidia, via DirectX/Nvidia CG - which Stadia listed as an API issue for competing in Cloud with linux or Windows Server- I can't help but think the FTC might try to fight their anti-trust actions against Microsoft via the weaker links like Nvidia.

Nvidia's purchase of 3dfx for next-to-nothing(with all their important graphics patents) and coinciding with a $500m loan from Microsoft - along with Microsoft's first refusal acquisition terms - that would have let Nvidia bleed 3dfx out in a patent suit that is an illegal tactic today to foreclose a rival - fair licensing terms for technology patents is settled in US courts on any dispute. In nascent PC 3D gaming market 3DFX's Glide API and Opengl dominated - as per LucasArts and idsoftware games - until Nvidia bought 3DFX and rebuilt DirectX with Microsoft, and then gained Windows level dominance itself in the high-end 3D accelerator market, virtually unopposed going by Steam user survey.

If the FTC went all the way back to the 3dfx deal and ruled it illegal, forcing Nvidia to divest all acquired and derived 3dfx technologies I could easily see Microsoft come to negotiate with the FTC, knowing that once DirectX's proprietary nature is lanced by being derived 3dfx technology - to then be in the hands of a independent buyer - Microsoft's ability to control Windows dominance of PC gaming along with Nvidia would be over as opengl/Vulkan fill the void make linux a more viable competitor on PC.

 

[Pelta88]

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.

I spoke about a conglomerate openly criticizing a sovereign nation and it's institutions. Your response was to talk about feelings. So I don't think we're on the same page or reading from the same book on this one. But to be crystal clear, Microsoft and Activision publicly criticizing our economy, government, regulatory law, and institutions means that the CMA's decision has now become entrenched. That sliver of hope you were clinging to aka the appeals process has just had a sledgehammer taken to it.

That is just how our society works.

 

[reinking]

Boosteroid, Ubitus, EE and now Nware are companies that exist. They're small. Which is why they're accepting these deals from Microsoft.

I wonder if these deals actually worked against MS? It shows the power that MS would hold and that these smaller companies have little choice but to comply with MS or be left out.

 

[poppabk]

with this information i understand why the ftc would want to look into the deal documents, all these providers that microsoft has signed contracts with do not exist, they are just a temporary showcase for microsoft services and to take advantage of the acquisition today which will never be and will become competitors in cloud gaming.

nvidia just agreed with microsoft from the beginning, they pretended to complain first trying to screw the regulators (kind of like i think nintendo did)

Again, this is Geforce business model, they charge you for the streaming of content tou already own. What is weird is that they quote the third party saying that this would be unnatractive to Nvidia, which is obviously wrong and they could just ask the first party - Nvidia.

 

[shaddam]

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

I wonder if these deals actually worked against MS? It shows the power that MS would hold and that these smaller companies have little choice but to comply with MS or be left out.

It's possible, but you'd have to look at the reverse too. That an independent ABK would likely never put their catalogue on these smaller cloud gaming services, even the bigger ones like Nvidia didn't like an independent ABK's terms.

My guess is without this deal, you'll see a future where ABK content shows up on maybe 1 or 2 of the biggest cloud gaming services and the smaller ones (who stood to gain access) will die off.

 

[HoofHearted]

 

[Topher]

It's possible, but you'd have to look at the reverse too. That an independent ABK would likely never put their catalogue on these smaller cloud gaming services, even the bigger ones like Nvidia didn't like an independent ABK's terms.

My guess is without this deal, you'll see a future where ABK content shows up on maybe 1 or 2 of the biggest cloud gaming services and the smaller ones (who stood to gain access) will die off.

Nvidia didn't like ABK terms for cloud streaming? Was that revealed somewhere?

 

[Heisenberg007]

1. Microsoft did not manage to get a deal from 2 of the 3 main cloud gaming competitors: Sony and Meta.
2. Microsoft offers Sony a PS Plus contract that is so ridiculous in price that they had to ask Sony to redact the price.
3. Microsoft offers cloud gaming providers ABK games but adds a clause that shares $0 of revenue with them, and MS gets 100% of the revenue.

CMA blocks the deal.

Microsoft and their fans:

What "grave injustice" done by the CMA.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

I spoke about a conglomerate openly criticizing a sovereign nation and it's institutions. Your response was to talk about feelings. So I don't think we're on the same page or reading from the same book on this one. But to be crystal clear, Microsoft and Activision publicly criticizing our economy, government, regulatory law, and institutions means that the CMA's decision has now become entrenched. That sliver of hope you were clinging to aka the appeals process has just had a sledgehammer taken to it.

That is just how our society works.

Why would these things lead to the decision being entrenched?

 

[reinking]

It's possible, but you'd have to look at the reverse too. That an independent ABK would likely never put their catalogue on these smaller cloud gaming services, even the bigger ones like Nvidia didn't like an independent ABK's terms.

My guess is without this deal, you'll see a future where ABK content shows up on maybe 1 or 2 of the biggest cloud gaming services and the smaller ones (who stood to gain access) will die off.

I believe it was you that said Nvidia did not like the deal ABK had offered prior to MS's offer. I think ABK on their own is less influential (still very big and influential) than MS owned ABK.

 

[quest]

1. Microsoft did not manage to get a deal from 2 of the 3 main cloud gaming competitors: Sony and Meta.
2. Microsoft offers Sony a PS Plus contract that is so ridiculous in price that they had to ask Sony to redact the price.
3. Microsoft offers cloud gaming providers ABK games but adds a clause that shares $0 of revenue with them, and MS gets 100% of the revenue.

CMA blocks the deal.

Microsoft and their fans:

What "grave injustice" done by the CMA.

The entitlement of some warriors is wow. You expect Microsoft to help out a rival who doesn't put their own new games on the cloud. Hell then Sony should put new releases on xcloud hahaha. So the standard is sony can keep it's games to it's self but everyone else needs to put their games everywhere especially Sony platforms day1. Sony only sony is entitled to exclusive content.

 

[Elios83]

Why would these things lead to the decision being entrenched?

Because a country, its government and istitutions cannot show they can get threatened by an american mega corporation that even the regulator of their own country wants to block.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Nvidia didn't like ABK terms for cloud streaming? Was that revealed somewhere?

From an IGN article. If Nvidia liked the commercial agreement ABK was offering, then ABK games would be on GeForce Now. They didn't like the terms, I think in one of the responses to one of the CMA releases something is said about royalties...

But, Nvidia jumped at the chance to get a better deal under Microsoft.

 

[Topher]

From an IGN article. If Nvidia liked the commercial agreement ABK was offering, then ABK games would be on GeForce Now. They didn't like the terms, I think in one of the responses to one of the CMA releases something is said about royalties...

But, Nvidia jumped at the chance to get a better deal under Microsoft.

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Three]

Boosteroid, Ubitus, EE and now Nware are companies that exist. They're small. Which is why they're accepting these deals from Microsoft.

To suggest Nvidia and Microsoft were in cahoots or that a number of small cloud gaming companies flat out don't exist is as crazy as saying the only reason why the CMA blocked the deal is because they accepted a bribe from Sony.

Can I ask, where are you from?
EE is not small. It's a big network provider. It doesn't have a cloud gaming service and isn't a cloud gaming company. Agree with this not being a conspiracy though.

MS were just too limited on who they were offering it to because they knew those companies weren't really competing platforms that were a threat to their service or business model. Nvidia Now runs on windows machines, doesn't get any royalties from mtx or dlc and doesn't even get the premium game sale. If they had offered good terms to more actual gamepass ultimate competitors I think they would have been seen more favourably. Remember that the three main concerns for the CMA began as console, multigame subscriptions, and cloud gaming. Within those they outlined their concerns like OS in cloud gaming and content for multigame subscriptions etc. They just didn't do a good job addressing them well. Maybe because they didn’t want it to jeopardise their service/business model or simply because they didn’t pay attention to their concerns well enough.

 

[dotnotbot]

Still trying to blame Sony, I see. It's so tired at this point. Then again, the idea of MS being responsible for their own errors and miscalculations is inconceivable to some.

I believe this is part of their E.E.E. strat. Along with doing everything to get rid of your competition, you also ruin their public reputation by constantly trashing them. Need as much negativity around the competing brand as possible, this way MS is viewed as the good one.

 

[poppabk]

From an IGN article. If Nvidia liked the commercial agreement ABK was offering, then ABK games would be on GeForce Now. They didn't like the terms, I think in one of the responses to one of the CMA releases something is said about royalties...

But, Nvidia jumped at the chance to get a better deal under Microsoft.

Yeah all this pearl clutching over MS keeping the revenue from the sale of the game when Activision wants providers to pay a significant sum of money (and too much for Nvidia of all people) for the privilege of them keeping 100% of the revenue from the sale of the game.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

I believe it was you that said Nvidia did not like the deal ABK had offered prior to MS's offer. I think ABK on their own is less influential (still very big and influential) than MS owned ABK.

I did. I think what I'm trying to say is a future where ABK is independent will only strengthen at most the strongest/wealthiest cloud providers.

Just like it's unfeasible for console gaming's market leader to pay fair market value to have CoD day 1 on it's MGS service, I doubt many would be willing to accept an independent ABK's commercial agreement.

At least under Microsoft the small guys would have a decade of favorable terms in which to grow their platforms.

But I do understand the otherside. A rug pull after 10 years leaving Microsoft the only cloud gaming platform to have access would be bad. But is it worse than stifling the growth of smaller cloud gaming platforms? That's where I think we may disagree. I would've liked to see strict remedies with a chance at renewal after 10 years.

 

[Banjo64]

• "Our focus is on bringing console quality games that you see on TV or PC to any device. [...] That is our goal: to bring high-quality games to every device possible on the planet." — Phil Spencer, June 2018
• "The business is selling software and services. The business is not how many consoles you sell. The consoles are not where the profit in this side of the business is made, which is where the whole: ‘Who’s selling more consoles’ at any one time as the kind of root good of who is doing well in the business is just not true. You have other companies entering gaming who don’t even have a console as part of their equation. It’s all about how many games are people playing. And how much people are spending playing those games and how often they play." — Phil Spencer, June 2019
• "When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward," Spencer said. "That's not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we've invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years." — Phil Spencer, Feb 2020
• "So right now, we are the only platform shipping games on console, PC and cloud simultaneously." — Phil Spencer, June 2021
• "We believe we can play a leading role in [the] future of interactive entertainment, quite frankly, at scale. There are three key areas where we have incredible competitive advantage. First is our leadership in cloud computing; second, the resources we have to build out the subscription value with Xbox Game Pass; and third is our overall focus on empowering creators." — Satya Nadella, June 2021
• Microsoft’s renewed focus on cloud gaming is similarly aimed at making games more accessible to people who don’t have or want a gaming console or computer. [...] "Kim [Swift] is going to build a team focused on new experiences in the cloud, something that’s going to support our mission of bringing our Xbox games to connect 3 billion gamers to play our games," said Wyse. "I do get super excited about the idea of high-fidelity gaming on a phone [...] that’s the carrot I keep chasing, for sure." — Peter Wyse, June 2021

 

[Banjo64]

Explains some of our friends on here, from Reddit;

I found this while looking into Florian Mueller who is another Microsoft shill on twitter

http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf

It essentially lays out Microsoft's playbook for astroturfing and dealing with any competition or "enemies" as they call them.

It is an internal Microsoft document that became public during an anti trust lawsuit Microsoft lost many years ago and seems to have been lost with time.

Essentially if Microsoft has any competitor they want to extinguish them. Sometimes that involves playing nice with others but eventually want to overwhelm them with their money and power.

Here's just a small part of the craziness in this doc

“Working behind the scenes to orchestrate “independent” praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy’s, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. “Independent” analyst’s report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). “Independent” consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). “Independent” academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). “Independent” courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.”

 

[Zheph]

Explains some of our friends on here, from Reddit;

I found this while looking into Florian Mueller who is another Microsoft shill on twitter

http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf

It essentially lays out Microsoft's playbook for astroturfing and dealing with any competition or "enemies" as they call them.

It is an internal Microsoft document that became public during an anti trust lawsuit Microsoft lost many years ago and seems to have been lost with time.

Essentially if Microsoft has any competitor they want to extinguish them. Sometimes that involves playing nice with others but eventually want to overwhelm them with their money and power.

Here's just a small part of the craziness in this doc

Honestly I couldn't write that shit ffs

 

[Three]

If Nvidia liked the commercial agreement ABK was offering, then ABK games would be on GeForce Now. They didn't like the terms, I think in one of the responses to one of the CMA releases something is said about royalties...

But, Nvidia jumped at the chance to get a better deal under Microsoft.

ABK weren't offering a commercial agreement to nvidia in the first place. Geforce Now doesn’t get royalties for anything so there were no terms. It literally is renting a PC to play the games you own on and nvidia were doing this without agreements in place with the content provider. They are not after royalties at all in the first place in their business model.

It's the other way around, ABK didn’t care for the service and were waiting for nvidia to pay them for the privilege because other companies like MS and Google were doing it for their cloud services, gamepass ultimate and Stadia. Then MS dropped $70B on them instead.

 

[drganon]

Explains some of our friends on here, from Reddit;

I found this while looking into Florian Mueller who is another Microsoft shill on twitter

http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf

It essentially lays out Microsoft's playbook for astroturfing and dealing with any competition or "enemies" as they call them.

It is an internal Microsoft document that became public during an anti trust lawsuit Microsoft lost many years ago and seems to have been lost with time.

Essentially if Microsoft has any competitor they want to extinguish them. Sometimes that involves playing nice with others but eventually want to overwhelm them with their money and power.

Here's just a small part of the craziness in this doc

It explains why they're so petulant right now.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Can I ask, where are you from?
EE is not small. It's a big network provider. It doesn't have a cloud gaming service and isn't a cloud gaming company. Agree with this not being a conspiracy though.

MS were just too limited on who they were offering it to because they knew those companies weren't really competing platforms that were a threat to their service or business model. Nvidia Now runs on windows machines, doesn't get any royalties from mtx or dlc and doesn't even get the premium game sale. If they had offered good terms to more actual gamepass ultimate competitors I think they would have been seen more favourably. Remember that the three main concerns for the CMA began as console, multigame subscriptions, and cloud gaming. Within those they outlined their concerns like OS in cloud gaming and content for multigame subscriptions etc. They just didn't do a good job addressing them well maybe because they didn’t want it to jeopardise their service/business model or simply because they didn’t pay attention to their concerns well enough.

Canada babeh!

I agree with the bolded. I think if Stadia were still around that would have been a deal made. However, any MGS service I don't think was willing to accept paying fair market value for CoD, and any terms that would be agreed to would probably be financially illogical. So I think that's why we didn't see any different cloud gaming models outside of BYOG get deals.

Like everyone, I'm not sure where cloud gaming will go in the future, but I don't think ABK will be a driving force of it's growth without this deal.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

ABK weren't offering a commercial agreement to nvidia in the first place. Geforce Now doesn’t get royalties for anything so there were no terms. It literally is renting a PC to play the games you own on and nvidia were doing this without agreements in place with the content provider. They are not after royalties at all in the first place in their business model.

It's the other way around, ABK didn’t care for the service and were waiting for nvidia to pay them for the privilege because other companies like MS and Google were doing it for their cloud services, gamepass ultimate and Stadia. Then MS dropped $70B on them instead.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

ABK wanted royalties from Nvidia. Probably something along the lines of "if your users play X amount of hours we want Z amount of money."

 

[Heisenberg007]

The entitlement of some warriors is wow. You expect Microsoft to help out a rival who doesn't put their own new games on the cloud. Hell then Sony should put new releases on xcloud hahaha. So the standard is sony can keep it's games to it's self but everyone else needs to put their games everywhere especially Sony platforms day1. Sony only sony is entitled to exclusive content.

The entitlement is indeed wow that Microsoft should own ABK IPs.

You used the word "rival". If Microsoft is renting its IPs to those "rivals" and taking all of their money, and they are at the mercy of Microsoft to host ABK games on their services, they are not Microsoft's "rivals" anymore. They are Microsoft's "customers" then.

And if they are Microsoft's "customers" and not "rivals", then the Cloud gaming market in the UK is f'cked because only Microsoft rules there.

Is this really that hard to understand?

 

[Elios83]

Explains some of our friends on here, from Reddit;

I found this while looking into Florian Mueller who is another Microsoft shill on twitter

http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf

It essentially lays out Microsoft's playbook for astroturfing and dealing with any competition or "enemies" as they call them.

It is an internal Microsoft document that became public during an anti trust lawsuit Microsoft lost many years ago and seems to have been lost with time.

Essentially if Microsoft has any competitor they want to extinguish them. Sometimes that involves playing nice with others but eventually want to overwhelm them with their money and power.

Here's just a small part of the craziness in this doc

It's basically the manual of the tactics they have used this gen. FUD campaigns sustained constantly by friendly individuals planted everywhere.
PS5 is underpowered, no one wants to pay for games anymore, Gamepass is the only future, the Activision deal is a benefit for the whole world also helping Ukraine
They have tried everything they could.

 

[quest]

The entitlement is indeed wow that Microsoft should own ABK IPs.

You used the word "rival". If Microsoft is renting its IPs to those "rivals" and taking all of their money, and they are at the mercy of Microsoft to host ABK games on their services, they are not Microsoft's "rivals" anymore. They are Microsoft's "customers" then.

And if they are Microsoft's "customers" and not "rivals", then the Cloud gaming market in the UK is f'cked because only Microsoft rules there.

Is this really that hard to understand?

Is it really hard to understand you want Microsoft in essence to give away day 1 releases to the Sony cloud when they don't even put out day 1 releases on their own cloud service. You want Sony to benefit from Microsoft's work for nothing. If someone said Sony has to put games on xcloud day 1 for free you laugh it off. With GeForce now everyone would of got money. Nvidia charging monthly rent with zero out of pocket expense. Microsoft or ABK gets the sale and dlc since they took the risk and spent millions to make the title. Instead you think Sony should get the rent with zero out of pocket and Microsoft or ABK to only get dlc money if the game even has it. So redfall Sony would make money for zero cost to them. Microsoft would get zero money in return really fair. When Sony starts putting games day 1 on other services for free we can talk about Microsoft being unfair.

 

[dotnotbot]

You want Sony to benefit from Microsoft's work for nothing.

Spending your daddy's money isn't work.

 

[Three]

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

What's with this today?

ABK wanted royalties from Nvidia. Probably something along the lines of "if your users play X amount of hours we want Z amount of money."

I'm just saying that nvidia were not offered anything from ABK for them to reject. ABK went out of their way to say they had no interest in the services or the model you're suggesting in the regulator responses.

Nvidia didn't pursue any agreement like the one you're suggesting because their service model isn't like that and ABK weren't interested.

It's a rented PC to play your games. Nvidia included games on geforce now without any commercial agreements. It had an "opt out" policy for anybody who wanted to remove their games. ABK just opted out saying there was no commercial agreement and sat back. It doesn't mean they offered something to nvidia at all for them to reject or be unhappy with, is all I'm saying. It's not an argument.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Is it really hard to understand you want Microsoft in essence to give away day 1 releases to the Sony cloud when they don't even put out day 1 releases on their own cloud service. You want Sony to benefit from Microsoft's work for nothing. If someone said Sony has to put games on xcloud day 1 for free you laugh it off. With GeForce now everyone would of got money. Nvidia charging monthly rent with zero out of pocket expense. Microsoft or ABK gets the sale and dlc since they took the risk and spent millions to make the title. Instead you think Sony should get the rent with zero out of pocket and Microsoft or ABK to only get dlc money if the game even has it. So redfall Sony would make money for zero cost to them. Microsoft would get zero money in return really fair. When Sony starts putting games day 1 on other services for free we can talk about Microsoft being unfair.

Keywords that I did not even use a single time in my comment:

• Sony
• Free
• Day 1

Why is it so hard to stay on topic and not move the goalpost after each reply?

No one is saying that MS should put games on other cloud gaming providers' services for free. But revenue sharing (30% vs. 70%) is a common industry practice that Microsoft itself benefits from on Game Pass.

MLB is on Game Pass. Do you think MLB keeps 70% of in-app revenue of 100% of in-app revenue?

Again, if they are Microsoft's customers, not rivals, the UK cloud gaming market becomes a monopoly. The CMA is there to ensure it doesn't happen.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Explains some of our friends on here, from Reddit;

I found this while looking into Florian Mueller who is another Microsoft shill on twitter

http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf

It essentially lays out Microsoft's playbook for astroturfing and dealing with any competition or "enemies" as they call them.

It is an internal Microsoft document that became public during an anti trust lawsuit Microsoft lost many years ago and seems to have been lost with time.

Essentially if Microsoft has any competitor they want to extinguish them. Sometimes that involves playing nice with others but eventually want to overwhelm them with their money and power.

Here's just a small part of the craziness in this doc

Brainless fanboys and low IQ media shills who have never opened a book in their life will go on being sheep.

We have seen it time and time again. I’ll say it again, the 12 months leading up to launch of this gen was a highly coordinated data driven narrative train that had fanboys and media eating from the palm of MS’s hands. If we go back and look at what was being said and speculated and spread like an air borne virus was completely disconnected from reality.

It’s 2023 and people are still whiplashing from the bullshit they absorbed. Some people are still stuck in that place.

 

[quest]

Keywords that I did not even use a single time in my comment:

• Sony
• Free
• Day 1

Why is it so hard to stay on topic and not move the goalpost after each reply?

No one is saying that MS should put games on other cloud gaming providers' services for free. But revenue sharing (30% vs. 70%) is a common industry practice that Microsoft itself benefits from on Game Pass.

MLB is on Game Pass. Do you think MLB keeps 70% of in-app revenue of 100% of in-app revenue?

Again, if they are Microsoft's customers, not rivals, the UK cloud gaming market becomes a monopoly. The CMA is there to ensure it doesn't happen.

And Microsoft is paying money to mlb to put the game on gamepass. We were talking the deal Microsoft made with othet cloud providers and you said Sony is left out. So the current deal would be lopsided to Sony's favor. If Sony wants to pay to get COD on the cloud day 1 they are free to pay abk they have marketing rights and dibs. But to expect the same deal for sony that was built around a different model well lol.

I say the CMA crushing everyone who isn't a content provider is more likely to lead to a monopoly. Just the one they want from Sony. They are choosing to hurt all the non content providers so Sony can wait until they are good and ready to win the cloud once it is viable if it ever is.

Brainless fanboys and low IQ media shills who have never opened a book in their life will go on being sheep.

We have seen it time and time again. I’ll say it again, the 12 months leading up to launch of this gen was a highly coordinated data driven narrative train that had fanboys and media eating from the palm of MS’s hands. If we go back and look at what was being said and speculated and spread like an air borne virus was completely disconnected from reality.

It’s 2023 and people are still whiplashing from the bullshit they absorbed. Some people are still stuck in that place.

You mean like 6 months leading up to the launch of article after article and internet posts destroying Microsoft over cross generation games. Then Sony announces the same and not a peep.

 

[NickFire]

You mean like 6 months leading up to the launch of article after article and internet posts destroying Microsoft over cross generation games. Then Sony announces the same and not a peep.

Where was this imaginary world where people didn’t bitch about cross gen games from Sony?

 

[DaedalusGrim]

Its a positive thing that the deal will be blocked, and no, a deal that actively removes content from platforms does not "benefit all gamers."

 

[MDSLKTR]

We got Kamala on the track!

 

[Topher]

You mean like 6 months leading up to the launch of article after article and internet posts destroying Microsoft over cross generation games. Then Sony announces the same and not a peep.

You can go down a rabbit hole with that shit though. $70 games. Bundles. Corporate executives crying. Not nearly as much energy from that nonsense when it was Microsoft's turn.

 

[Thirty7ven]

You mean like 6 months leading up to the launch of article after article and internet posts destroying Microsoft over cross generation games. Then Sony announces the same and not a peep.

If thats what you took, then you're one of those I mentioned. Amazing, the tsunami of fake praise and hype for Xbox and the constant downplaying and fud around Playstation wasnt enough for you. Im not surprised.

 

[IlGialloMondadori]

We got Kamala on the track!

Biden on his way over to have a proper American-style word with Sunak.

The people need Call of Duty on Gamepass, and goddamn it, Sony just ain't American, so if we can't take Call of Duty away from Sony, then I don't want to be American anymore.

 

[GHG]

Can't say I didn't try to warn everyone:

Jimbo on April 26th:

 

[Mr Moose]

We got Kamala on the track!

 

[quest]

Where was this imaginary world where people didn’t bitch about cross gen games from Sony?

Did we see the gaming media take Sony to task for 6 months no. Even here it was a few days and nothing. So Microsoft hardly could coordinate any good will if the narrative leading to launch was Microsoft sucks for cross generation games and sony is the best for we believe in generations tag line. There was multiple daily posts here posting every negative cross generation article for 6 months with tons of gloating and dunking on Microsoft.

 

[Topher]

We got Kamala on the track!

FTC is lying. Only truthful ones in this whole deal are Lulu, Brad Smitch, Bobby Kotick and, of course, the all-knowing, all-wise CADE.

 

[Mr Moose]

Did we see the gaming media take Sony to task for 6 months no. Even here it was a few days and nothing. So Microsoft hardly could coordinate any good will if the narrative leading to launch was Microsoft sucks for cross generation games and sony is the best for we believe in generations tag line. There was multiple daily posts here posting every negative cross generation article for 6 months with tons of gloating and dunking on Microsoft.

You don't know what you are talking about. Try reading more than just headlines.

 

[Topher]

Did we see the gaming media take Sony to task for 6 months no. Even here it was a few days and nothing. So Microsoft hardly could coordinate any good will if the narrative leading to launch was Microsoft sucks for cross generation games and sony is the best for we believe in generations tag line. There was multiple daily posts here posting every negative cross generation article for 6 months with tons of gloating and dunking on Microsoft.

Google "sony cross gen" and these will come up on the first page.

Sony keeps screwing up its PlayStation cross-gen strategy

This week in Protocol Gaming, your weekly guide to the business of video games: Sony still can't figure out its cross-gen strategy, a game industry CEO accidentally instigates a high-profile exit, and the Epic v. Apple trial comes to a close. (Was this email forwarded to you? Subscribe...

www.protocol.com

We have to learn to live with PlayStation cross-gen games for now

Cross-gen PlayStation games won't end any time soon

www.tomsguide.com

Forget business sense, Sony’s cross-gen U-turn is disappointing for PS5’s potential | VGC

Sony’s PS4 announcements mean we’ll likely have to wait for Mark Cerny’s SSD future…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[GHG]

Explains some of our friends on here, from Reddit;

I found this while looking into Florian Mueller who is another Microsoft shill on twitter

http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf

It essentially lays out Microsoft's playbook for astroturfing and dealing with any competition or "enemies" as they call them.

It is an internal Microsoft document that became public during an anti trust lawsuit Microsoft lost many years ago and seems to have been lost with time.

Essentially if Microsoft has any competitor they want to extinguish them. Sometimes that involves playing nice with others but eventually want to overwhelm them with their money and power.

Here's just a small part of the craziness in this doc

DarkMage619 damn son, you were getting paid up to $200 per hour for that crap?

Not bad.

 

[sinnergy]

I don’t even like most Activision games but these threads are pure entertainment!!