Support NeoGAF

[Kilau]

Does the debate resume today? at what time?

The debate never ends here, we are masters of it.

 

[Pelta88]

Hopium is hell uva drug.

As is copium….

As long as we don't mix the doses, it should be fine.

Copium helps elevate: Wait till, Phil Spencer said, Because it's on gamepass, Pentiment etc

Hopium reduces: Microsoft needs to buy everything to compete, Why would Phil withhold, XB isn't selling because of stock etc

Word on the street is if you mix the doses... You'll attain SenjutsuSage's level of thinking.

 

[jm89]

I'm still waiting for the bombshell question of Microsoft's intent if the injunction isn't granted. With the CAT appeal being beyond the deadline, and so far no renegotiation, that is such an easy trap card to play. The best Microsoft can hope for out of this case is that the injunction isn't granted and they can use that to convince ABK to renegotiate an extension while Microsoft tries to overturn the CMA. Because any course of action that tries to close the deal before then is incredibly risky and potentially devastating to the company.

Honestly i don't see it as a bombshell question. MS could just say they had no plans on closing over the CMA, there is no definite statement they were ever going to. It's either been a third party outlet reporting it or MS telling the FTC they wouldn't notify them anymore before merging.

What could the FTC do at that point? Tell the judge there is no harm in granting it? Let this case be fought through the proper process? Those don't seem like a good arguments by itself, obviously that's for the judge to decide and none of us will know what she thinks. If she doesn't bite the FTC are gonna have to hope their other arguments are strong to get the PI granted.

I still think the FTC took a unnecessary risk, could they have really believed MS was going to get into a legal war with the UK over this? Maybe they still have some other bombshells over the coming days and saving it for satya or kotick, won't hold my breath on that though.

 

[Bernoulli]

Is something happening today or will have to wait until Friday for FTC results?

 

[GHG]

Is something happening today or will have to wait until Friday for FTC results?

Court proceedings resume on Tuesday I believe.

 

[mckmas8808]

There is a huge issue in how content creators have approached this case tbh.

Like put the shills like Jez aside for a moment, you just had a session where almost half of the pertinent info was redacted from us (Jim Ryan deposition video + Xbox CFO testimony), and yet people are pontificating away about winners and losers.

The one I'm most disappointed in tbh is Hoeg, this is his territory, he should know that missing info means that a lot of context is absent and should be reminding people as such.

I don't think Hoeg is on the take, but missing the forest for the trees like he has over the last 4-6 months is rather odd. Especially when it's clear he's a smart guy. It's hard to come up with a reason as to why he seems to miss the finer details about this one situation. And his mishaps always "seems" to favor Microsoft.

But again, I'm not saying MS is paying Hoeg at all. But if they were, this is what it'll look like.

 

[Kilau]

Honestly, I still think the single most important thing the FTC can do is ask Nadella what Microsoft plans to do if the injunction is denied. Trapping him to either admit that Microsoft plans to push through despite a UK authority telling them no, which looks incredibly bad and alerts the UK, or say that they have no plans to do so and get asked what the harm is then in having a preliminary injunction. Since he still needs a deal extension anyways. Plus, opening up Microsoft to serious litigation in both countries if they try.

I'm sure he has a well crafted response to that. Or he could pull a Phil and say he doesn't know.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm sure he has a well crafted response to that. Or he could pull a Phil and say he doesn't know.

"I don't recall us having a thought experiment if that should happen."

 

[ToadMan]

Honestly i don't see it as a bombshell question. MS could just say they had no plans on closing over the CMA, there is no definite statement they were ever going to. It's either been a third party outlet reporting it or MS telling the FTC they wouldn't notify them anymore before merging.

What could the FTC do at that point? Tell the judge there is no harm in granting it? Let this case be fought through the proper process? Those don't seem like a good arguments by itself, obviously that's for the judge to decide and none of us will know what she thinks. If she doesn't bite the FTC are gonna have to hope their other arguments are strong to get the PI granted.

I still think the FTC took a unnecessary risk, could they have really believed MS was going to get into a legal war with the UK over this? Maybe they still have some other bombshells over the coming days and saving it for satya or kotick, won't hold my breath on that though.

The illumina-grail injunction is what the FTC could do.

In that case, the FTC withdrew their injunction suit effectively halting the case without conceding (they did so because the EU issued an order insisting Grail be "held separate" from Illumina pending examination - the FTC recognised their injunction didn't need to continue because the EU had restrained process).

But here's the kicker, because the FTC halted the suit before a verdict, the Judge set a precedent that they maintained the option to go for another injunction later if they felt it necessary.

So yeah, if MS said "we definitely won't close before CMA completion - cross our hearts, and link pinkies" then the FTC could say - fine, halt these proceedings but we will bring them again if we think plans are changing…

And that would mean another restraining order in future and of course MS don't get the legal clarity of decision now, while leaving another round of court shenanigans on the table.

 

[jm89]

So yeah, if MS said "we definitely won't close before CMA completion - cross our hearts, and link pinkies" then the FTC could say - fine, halt these proceedings but we will bring them again if we think plans are changing…

Oh had no idea they could halt it. I guess that question would be lobbed at satya as his the most senior at MS and not worth asking phil or the other execs that where on the stand last week as they would just say it's above them. He says no we aren't going to do it, shut it down and kill the closing over CMA and FTC narrative.

 

[The Pleasure]

Word on the street is if you mix the doses... You'll attain SenjutsuSage's level of thinking.

When you reach that level, not even Narcan can halp you.

 

[splattered]

Oh had no idea they could halt it. I guess that question would be lobbed at satya as his the most senior at MS and not worth asking phil or the other execs that where on the stand last week as they would just say it's above them. He says no we aren't going to do it, shut it down and kill the closing over CMA and FTC narrative.

Yeah it will be interesting to see if the question is asked and what his response will be, since last time he was asked he simply said "we will have to wait to see how it plays out" or something like that

 

[ToadMan]

Oh had no idea they could halt it. I guess that question would be lobbed at satya as his the most senior at MS and not worth asking phil or the other execs that where on the stand last week as they would just say it's above them. He says no we aren't going to do it, shut it down and kill the closing over CMA and FTC narrative.

Potentially yes - according to precedent.

Yet … it never seems as straightforward as that. There's probably some other legal aspect I'm not aware of.

But anyway, the FTC brought this case based on a view that MS may close in spite of the UK order prohibiting the acquisition.

So, if the FTC can pin down someone sufficiently senior to say "MS won't break the law" then perhaps they would just walk away for now. And if MS won't confirm they will follow the law - well, what does that say about MS in this injunction?

 

[roosnam1980]

Lol I was checking a tweet from Gene about FF16 when suddenly Lulu Cheng in the replies

lulu keeping a close eye on playstation exclusives

 

[demigod]

You should've checked all the meltdowns here when the CMA dropped the console slc and the deal seems like it was going for an easy approval... was quite horrible ... sony fans accounts been banned , accounts suicides... cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria

Which sony fans were banned because of the cma?

 

[Kilau]

Which sony fans were banned because of the cma?

Ass of Can Whooping

Possibly unrelated since he gets banned every 5 mins it's hard to tell.

 

[Topher]

Which sony fans were banned because of the cma?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

lulu keeping a close eye on playstation exclusives

These people (journalists, reviewers, gamers, Lulu etc.) complaining about FF XVI not being open world sound like they're stuck in 2002, when "open world" was the new hotness and suddenly everything needed to be open-world or it wasn't good enough. Just like in the mid-90's when everything needed to suddenly be 3D or it wasn't good enough (in the West). And it's ALWAYS Western games journalists with these most stupid of takes, mainly in America. You rarely get these dumb takes from Europe and certainly not from Japan.

But I do feel (stressing "feel" here; can't verify with evidence) that part of these complaints about FF XVI not being "open-world enough" are somewhat being weaponized in a macro conversation at the behest of a certain Microsoft 1P (technically Zenimax/Bethesda 1P) game releasing in September which has done nothing but have people tout about how "expansive" and "open of scale" it is. And that would probably be a good guess to make because we've seen the vitriol some people seem to have about mainline FF games being console-exclusive to PlayStation (when it is just one of many JRPGs, and most others also releasing installments on Xbox); that combined with it being the current big PlayStation exclusive seems to always draw out these idiotic takes.

If there were another big console exclusive on another platform out right now, or a somewhat-similar multiplat AAA release, you bet there'd be more overt & direct comparisons against those games explicitly. There've been some attempts with Diablo IV but it's too dissimilar to work, and Zelda is Zelda. I'm sure we'll see more idiotic takes with Spiderman 2 once that releases that either directly or indirectly try making it look bad compared to Starfield, with the more disingenuous ones coming from the same lame Western games media.

Sorry for the slight derail; I just wanted to talk about that a bit since this triggered the topic in my head.

 

[roosnam1980]

These people (journalists, reviewers, gamers, Lulu etc.) complaining about FF XVI not being open world sound like they're stuck in 2002, when "open world" was the new hotness and suddenly everything needed to be open-world or it wasn't good enough. Just like in the mid-90's when everything needed to suddenly be 3D or it wasn't good enough (in the West). And it's ALWAYS Western games journalists with these most stupid of takes, mainly in America. You rarely get these dumb takes from Europe and certainly not from Japan.

But I do feel (stressing "feel" here; can't verify with evidence) that part of these complaints about FF XVI not being "open-world enough" are somewhat being weaponized in a macro conversation at the behest of a certain Microsoft 1P (technically Zenimax/Bethesda 1P) game releasing in September which has done nothing but have people tout about how "expansive" and "open of scale" it is. And that would probably be a good guess to make because we've seen the vitriol some people seem to have about mainline FF games being console-exclusive to PlayStation (when it is just one of many JRPGs, and most others also releasing installments on Xbox); that combined with it being the current big PlayStation exclusive seems to always draw out these idiotic takes.

If there were another big console exclusive on another platform out right now, or a somewhat-similar multiplat AAA release, you bet there'd be more overt & direct comparisons against those games explicitly. There've been some attempts with Diablo IV but it's too dissimilar to work, and Zelda is Zelda. I'm sure we'll see more idiotic takes with Spiderman 2 once that releases that either directly or indirectly try making it look bad compared to Starfield, with the more disingenuous ones coming from the same lame Western games media.

Sorry for the slight derail; I just wanted to talk about that a bit since this triggered the topic in my head.

they will only praise ff16 if it is announced for xbox

 

[mckmas8808]

Is that Sarah Bond next to Phil?

 

[Topher]

Is that Sarah Bond next to Phil?

yes

 

[wolffy66]

I think the chances of an extension now that Activision shares are higher and they basically scored free 3bn is very low. They'll want a full renegotiation.

For what? So they can watch their share price drop again when they are back to dealing with Kotick. I don't think that issue is just gonna go away.

 

[DeepEnigma]

For what? So they can watch their share price drop again when they are back to dealing with Kotick. I don't think that issue is just gonna go away.

The share price literally went up when the CMA's decision was released. Seems like the stock market likes Activision in their current independent performance.

The market does not care about drama, they care about results. And whatever anyone personally feels about Kotick, one thing is for certain, he is good at his job and getting results.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Varteras I'm going to say you nailed a lot of good points. However, you failed to nail the obvious points going against the FTC (and or Sony). The simple reasons MS was pushed against the wall to purchase Bethesda and ABK in the first place.

• Sony already knew how to put leverage on MS with Bethesda because Sony was already using the same tactic with ABK. We just learned how ABK kept asking for more and more money just to keep games on Xbox. - Wrong or Right? Yea I'm right!
• "Sony only asked for 2 timed exclusives" from Bethesda. Why did Sony do that, have you asked yourself that question? (Here's the answer) - Sony was trying to cozy up to MS's biggest ally and scoop them away from Xbox. Deathloop and Ghostwire was just the beginning. Sony's real eyes were on Starfield and Bethesda's future games!
• Its easy to see where this was headed. MS loosing ABK and Bethesda and MS takes Xbox out of the game! FTC might not look so, friendly on Sony if they saw the big picture? Which was to get Microsoft and Xbox out of console gaming at all costs.
• Nothing has changed since Xbox entered the race. Sony said from the very beginning the only endgame for them was no MS in gaming period and they're still trying... Need proof of that how about from this very forum going way back to Nov. 2005!

Thanks Mrbob - The interview article is long toasted but, the facts are still preserved!


When dirt is on the other player things aren't so cut and dry. Wonder if the FTC has seen or knew about this interview?

Okay, so you're bringing up an article with supposed quotes but no actual quotes...a lot of these could be based on hearsay unless sources for the quotes (in the articles they were given) are provided. Normally you'd expect those to be written in a question-and-answer format, and even if you could source such quotes in that format from Peter Moore and co., I doubt you would from Ken Kutaragi unless there are original Japanese interviews of the quotes preserved. Also why are we going back to Kutaragi? He was effectively fired from Sony after the PS3 launch; if you're going to pin current Sony's motives to quotes from the '90s from a guy who was fired in the mid-2000s', that looks maybe even more ridiculous than the people still blaming Don Mattrick for Xbox's current problem a decade after he left Microsoft.

Also Peter Moore's hands aren't 100% clean here; it's not really Sony's fault why the Dreamcast failed, it's Sega's. Sega rushed the Dreamcast for Japan in late 1998, while Saturn was still doing pretty well there (it had slowed down, but was still getting a good amount of Japanese 3P support, more than N64 for sure). They rushed out buggy copies of Sonic Adventure and VF3 Team Battle and didn't have a lot of software, plus IIRC Sonic Adventure was delayed initially. NEC ran into supply issues with the PowerVR2 graphics chip so that affected Dreamcast early supply, and the truth is throughout 1999 the PS1 and N64 just had more appealing software release schedules for Japan compared to Dreamcast; some of the biggest games up to that point were releasing for those systems, and Dreamcast didn't have as many AAA-caliber games even if it had games with technically better graphics.

And I just notice that "Dreamcast it" quote isn't from Peter Moore at all, but some editor from Game Informer during the 360 era. AKA, just someone's opinion, a Western games journalists' opinion no less. There is no way you can lean on that as if it's an objective statement of anything; in fact I did more just now to show why that quote's sentiment is wrong than they did rationalizing why it was right.

Also this quote:

Its no secret that Kutaragi expects the PlayStation to one day replace the PC.

The way it's written in the article makes it sound like this was a stated directive of Sony's; in actuality, it was Microsoft's stated interpretation of Sony's end-goal in console gaming but one Microsoft utilized in order to convince higher-ups at the company to actually jump into console gaming, to stop what they had already decided internally was a "big threat" to their PC dominance if home consoles replaced PCs for gaming. There's no source of Kutaragi or anyone from Sony ever saying PC/Microsoft were their real target; what you WILL likely find, though, are both quotes and supporting evidence that Sony viewed Nintendo and Sega as their main competitors, but those aren't Microsoft and PC, are they? Even Microsoft's recent Xbox documentary series pretty much spells it out that Microsoft were the ones who internally pushed the idea that Sony were trying to replace PCs with consoles (that's how MS viewed the PS2), and they leveraged that fear to convince Bill Gates to commit to a games console.

There are other things in that article you linked which are also wrong or revisionist history: Kutaragi never claimed that PS2 would provide Toy Story graphics; there's actually a thread here on the topic. I'll post relevant quotes below:

The article goes on to hype the system's capabilities, saying that it will
be able to produce images with the quality of Disney/Pixar's Toy Story
(remember when Nintendo said the N64 would have Jurassic Park and T2-quality
effects when the Project Reality was first announced?), and that it will be
able to handle 50 times more 3D data than the Dreamcast.

-Chris Johnston, videogames.com

NURBS (or Non-Uniform Rational B-Spline) is a
technique that allows developers to specify 3D
surfaces on object in an environment. Currently,
gamers have only seen the use of this technology
when viewing 3D automobile models on television.
Characters in games could look as good as they
do in Toy Story.

-Yutaka Ohbuchi & Micheal Mullen, Nikkei Electronics Wire

You can say this is a small thing to try being so exact about, but it's just also a way of showing how easily actual truths from the past can get lost in translation, or twisted by nontruthful accounts over time. Somehow over the past 2+ decades, the "Toy Story graphics" quote went from being accredited to Nikkei & videogames.com editors, to Sony itself (the idea being Sony engaged in misleading marketing to hype PS2 and kill Dreamcast).

Last thing: the claim Bill Gates wanted a Windows OS in PS2. It's funny the article you linked makes it sound like it was out of spite to harm Microsoft...by that logic when Microsoft rejected Sega's proposal for an actual Dreamcast 2, should we interpret that as MS also wanting Sega out of the console market? I mean, couldn't they have just backed Sega financially and let Sega handle the management, marketing, distribution etc. of a Dreamcast 2 since Sega had more industry experience? Wouldn't that have been better for MS's goals to reach places like Japan for gaming, since Sega knew that market better than MS has ever demonstrated since becoming a platform holder?

Or is the truth behind Sony rejecting a Windows OS for PS2 simply down to MS not offering a good enough solution for the hardware Kutaragi's team was designing? Maybe the price wasn't right? Maybe certain conditions weren't right? No one really knows but all of those are more probable than assuming it was over some long-term goal by Sony to "kill Microsoft" when they weren't even necessarily involved in the same markets MS were in outside of PCs with Vaio, and those were made to...run Windows!

 

[Ar¢tos]

For what? So they can watch their share price drop again when they are back to dealing with Kotick. I don't think that issue is just gonna go away.

There are new players in the game wanting to make deals with Activision and current marketing deals are going to expire soon, staying attached to this deal with MS that has low chances of going through will compromise that.

 

[mckmas8808]

Has Warren just stopped caring about looking like a paid MS shill now? How is this a funny exchange? Does he honestly think the FTC lawyer doesn't understand how acquisitions work? Why is our media this bad?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Has Warren just stopped caring about looking like a paid MS shill now? How is this a funny exchange? Does he honestly think the FTC lawyer doesn't understand how acquisitions work? Why is our media this bad?

They have always been biased for MS; they just feel more emboldened to go full mask-off as the possible deadline for the deal (whether a reprieve on life or its sudden demise) draws near.

I'm more surprised by the analysts, pundits, content creators etc. who otherwise seemed to stay out of going one way or another (at least too much) but have gone mask-off themselves. Hoeg Law, Benji Sales, Rebs Gaming among them.

 

[Topher]

 

[jm89]

Has Warren just stopped caring about looking like a paid MS shill now? How is this a funny exchange? Does he honestly think the FTC lawyer doesn't understand how acquisitions work? Why is our media this bad?

Yeah it's weird how the narrative is the FTC lawyer didn't know how acquisitons worked. More like Phil rambling on and directing the conversation somewhere else, and the FTC lawyer failing to bring it back to the point of microsfts ability to throw around cash for Xbox. This is one area the FTC could have done better.

 

[DeepEnigma]

"It's so weird..."

No, you're a shill. Just like Florian.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Funny that Tom Warren listed Havok as a "middleware company" as if they were still independent in 2019, when Microsoft purchased them from Intel in 2015 .

Either Tom doesn't research his own stuff or he was deliberately lying. Honestly a toss-up.

 

[Calverz]

As long as we don't mix the doses, it should be fine.

Copium helps elevate: Wait till, Phil Spencer said, Because it's on gamepass, Pentiment etc

Hopium reduces: Microsoft needs to buy everything to compete, Why would Phil withhold, XB isn't selling because of stock etc

Word on the street is if you mix the doses... You'll attain SenjutsuSage's level of thinking.

He should come back.

 

[DeepEnigma]

He should come back.

 

[Topher]

Funny that Tom Warren listed Havok as a "middleware company" as if they were still independent in 2019, when Microsoft purchased them from Intel in 2015 .

Either Tom doesn't research his own stuff or he was deliberately lying. Honestly a toss-up.

He should come back.

 

[reksveks]

Funny that Tom Warren listed Havok as a "middleware company" as if they were still independent in 2019, when Microsoft purchased them from Intel in 2015 .

Either Tom doesn't research his own stuff or he was deliberately lying. Honestly a toss-up.

Topher kinda beat me to it.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Topher kinda beat me to it.

Thanks for the clarifications. Though, there's still something amusing in Tom writing the article under the premise of Google doing anything to get away from Microsoft for Stadia, but lists a middleware entity Microsoft still has full ownership of (even if they operate independently).

 

[mckmas8808]

The thing that makes me so upset is that the video game's media literally couldn't care less about this document and the highlighted parts. One must assume that MS did similar deals with all those others when it comes to COD too. These deals were/are worthless!!!!

Yet "they" don't want to tweet about that.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The thing that makes me so upset is that the video game's media literally couldn't care less about this document and the highlighted parts. One must assume that MS did similar deals with all those others when it comes to COD too. These deals were/are worthless!!!!

Yet "they" don't want to tweet about that.

It's all about the narrative™, you see.

 

[dibella360]

Question about the CAT/CMA. Is new evidence allowed to be entered? I am wondering if the new Google claims about the cloud market (from the FTC case) can apply to CAT.

 

[jm89]

Question about the CAT/CMA. Is new evidence allowed to be entered? I am wondering if the new Google claims about the cloud market (from the FTC case) can apply to CAT.

I'll be surprised if they did, the CAT judge called out MS for backfilling evidence for the appeal a few weeks ago.

Also what did google claim?

 

[mckmas8808]

If MS gets ABK the second half of this generation will be the most important time in the history of PlayStation. I don't think Sony is ready.

It's impossible to be ready for that. Plus if MS gets ABK for $69 billion, then best believe they'll be attempting to buy Ubisoft or EA next for $30+ billion!

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Question about the CAT/CMA. Is new evidence allowed to be entered? I am wondering if the new Google claims about the cloud market (from the FTC case) can apply to CAT.

Maybe? Though it's worth nothing, just because the person from Google answered that question that way, doesn't mean other companies in the same space feel similar. And I've seen others put it well, too: products of two different markets can still compete with each other for a customer's time and money.

Video games and movies do that, for example, and they're completely different mediums.

I'll be surprised if they did, the CAT judge called out MS for backfilling evidence for the appeal a few weeks ago.

Also what did google claim?

A Google executive (whose comments probably can't be bound to the company itself, similar to how Phil Spencer's can't be bound to Microsoft) said that cloud gaming (Stadia) competes (competed, in Stadia's case) with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.

Some people are taking that to mean cloud gaming is not a distinct market, and use that against the CMA.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Question about the CAT/CMA. Is new evidence allowed to be entered? I am wondering if the new Google claims about the cloud market (from the FTC case) can apply to CAT.

I think they need an extension before worrying about that. That's the first challenge IMO.

 

[dibella360]

I'll be surprised if they did, the CAT judge called out MS for backfilling evidence for the appeal a few weeks ago.

Also what did google claim?

The Google witness claimed that Stadia viewed Xbox/PlayStation consoles as competition. This in theory means that cloud should not be separated as its own market (the very thing the CMA is arguing)

 

[jm89]

A Google executive (whose comments probably can't be bound to the company itself, similar to how Phil Spencer's can't be bound to Microsoft) said that cloud gaming (Stadia) competes (competed, in Stadia's case) with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.

Some people are taking that to mean cloud gaming is not a distinct market, and use that against the CMA.

The Google witness claimed that Stadia viewed Xbox/PlayStation consoles as competition. This in theory means that cloud should not be separated as its own market (the very thing the CMA is arguing)

Yeah i don't see how that indicates that cloud and console are not seperate.

Cloud gaming is a growing market in gaming they will target customers from other markets by being competitive.

2 difrrent markets can compete with one another.

Besides we have the EC and korean regulator calling it a market.

 

[dibella360]

Maybe? Though it's worth nothing, just because the person from Google answered that question that way, doesn't mean other companies in the same space feel similar. And I've seen others put it well, too: products of two different markets can still compete with each other for a customer's time and money.

Video games and movies do that, for example, and they're completely different mediums.



A Google executive (whose comments probably can't be bound to the company itself, similar to how Phil Spencer's can't be bound to Microsoft) said that cloud gaming (Stadia) competes (competed, in Stadia's case) with Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo.

Some people are taking that to mean cloud gaming is not a distinct market, and use that against the CMA.

I agree with everything you just stated. Just one question... who are these other companies in the space? Other than Google, the other companies have 10-year agreements with Microsoft.

 

[Topher]

I agree with everything you just stated. Just one question... who are these other companies in the space? Other than Google, the other companies have 10-year agreements with Microsoft.

Boosteroid, Ubitus and Nvidia, I believe.

 

[DeepEnigma]

The Google witness claimed that Stadia viewed Xbox/PlayStation consoles as competition. This in theory means that cloud should not be separated as its own market (the very thing the CMA is arguing)

They are separate. On functionality alone. You can still be competition and in separate logistical markets. And it wasn't just the CMA. EC agreed, FTC agrees, NZ and AUS agree, etc..

GFNow and Luna have nothing to do with consoles, it's a separate market, but it still competes for video gamer time and convenience.

 

[mckmas8808]

I could quite easily be wrong, but I think the fact that a renegotiation hasn't happened after two months out from being blocked by the CMA is an indication that ABK has no desire to. They would have been well aware of the difficulty in overcoming the CMA. Meta was just a very recent example of how that often goes. So one would think that if they wanted to go the distance, they would have already extended. It's been pointed out many times now. They'd be blocking themselves from making deals with anyone else for however long it takes. Their soon expiring marketing deals, upcoming games, potential future buyers, or even their own acquisition opportunities would very much be affected. Staying on the deal simply paralyzes them for the duration. They have an opportunity to collect $3 billion and explore other options. Diablo 4 was a big hit, they have tons of money stashed away, and their legal troubles have diminished. Microsoft would have to make them one hell of a deal that still has the odds stacked against it.

What if MS upped the amount to $85 Billion and took out the language that the CMA had to approve it?

 

[DeepEnigma]

What if MS upped the amount to $85 Billion and took out the language that the CMA had to approve it?

From what I understand, it would still be illegal to operate in the UK. The CMA has made their decision, even forbid MS or Activision to invest in each other for 10 years to try and get around the ruling.