Support NeoGAF

[Three]

Going on about 'official support' is just a diversion. The conversation was about SteamDeck compatibility, and Valve themselves aggressively promote Proton as a route for compatibility.

Nah, what's a real diversion is your use of proton to suggest MS is supporting a platform when it isn't. Proton is a cat and mouse game of trying to add a compatibility layer to get support for a platform that the software maker doesn't actually support by mimicking one they actually do. The conversation started with somebody asking about official MS support on steamdeck for native xbox app games. The conversation wasn't about just steamdeck compatibility. You're trying to make it about that by ignoring what was being discussed.

That snippet at the link actually does prove my point. They provide support for Deck related issues if it's reported or flagged with the relevant channels.

No, because official support would mean you can report a bug officially. Since it isn't officially supported they're likely to just discard that ticket and consider it noise in their task tracker so they divert it to other 'channels'.

And I gave you examples that ran on the deck with no hassle. Redfall, HiFi Rush, Grounded, Pentiment, Forza Horizon 5…
Your sole example Is a minecraft title that got fixed quickly.

FH5 didn't run fine without hassle. People were jumping through hoops again with proton to stop it from crashing. I wouldn't even recommend running redfall on a deck and I have no experience with the other games but I would again say these aren't proof of official MS support for the platform. Not sure why you're adamant they are when most day one releases require proton hotfixes/workarounds to mimick windows.

 

[SomeGit]

What do you mean exactly? You don't need an alternate version for steamdeck specifically. You can drop windows or directx dependencies though. I agree that barely any publishers do this due to the huge marketshare of windows on the PC gaming market but I also don't see the relevance of this when trying to suggest that a publisher supports the smaller, even competing, market when they .

What are you suggesting other than an alternate version? The vast vast majority of Steam Deck games use Windows/DirectX dependencies, because they are Windows/DirectX games, either you are do an alternate Steam Deck version that actively avoids certain Win/Dx calls, switch to Vulkan or even a native Linux build. Guess how many devs actually do this.

"A lot of developers don't do native linux/steamdeck support" isn't a exactly a good rebuttal to "MS doesn't support linux/steamdeck".

Yes it is, when I can name stuff like EA, Activision, Facepunch, Bungie, PUBG, etc. that actively refuse to add support to AC on their games.
I wish I could play Cold War or FIFA 23 on Deck, yet I can play Halo Infinite. Care to guess who is supporting the Deck here? All of the feature custom AC solutions, can you guess which one actively went out of their way to support it.

Activison no and I imagine that would be the case after too but I gave an example where compatibility was broken and dependencies on windows and directx were added in minecraft. Then we ended up with a broken release on linux/steamdeck.

They were added because it's a DirectX game like 90% of the Verified titles on Deck, what is your point here?
If it was something nefarious than it wouldn't work even after a Proton hot fix.

I see you edited this in your older post. There aren't plenty. Hardly any games from MS day one are verified. The list of unverified broken games day one far outnumber pentiment and hifi rush.

It was added less than 2 minutes after, don't pretend this was some great point that I just slided there. And yes there are more than just pentiment and hi fi rush, Ghostwire Tokyo was verified, so was Deathloop, Redfall, Doom Eternal, Grounded, etc. and the ones that weren't were listed as Playable, which again it's basically the same thing for most Deck users.

The list of broken ones are basically FS, Halo Infinite, MCC and Minecraft Legends, with the exception of FS all of them are working now. Please tell the norm here. This is ridiculous, I'm not claiming that they are championing the Deck but they are clearly either above the norm or not in anyway actively breaking support for it.

But please do go on, I don't think this off topic discussion is any good.

 

[Ozriel]

FH5 didn't run fine without hassle. People were jumping through hoops again with proton to stop it from crashing. I wouldn't even recommend running redfall on a deck and I have no experience with the other games but I would again say these aren't proof of official MS support for the platform. Not sure why you're adamant they are when most day one releases require proton hotfixes/workarounds to mimick windows.

FH5 was handed out along with SteamDeck review units as a verified game. Crashes that early in the life of the device were not uncommon. Pinning that on the game is illogical.

Again, the majority of Microsoft's game releases since 2021 have run on the Deck without any hotfixes or patches, and most have shipped with 'Deck Verified' tags.

Valve encourages Proton. It's part and parcel of the Deck experience, and you pitching it as 'a hacky workaround to mimick windows' is doing their efforts a disservice.

 

[Three]

What are you suggesting other than an alternate version? The vast vast majority of Steam Deck games use Windows/DirectX dependencies, because they are Windows/DirectX games, either you are do an alternate Steam Deck version that actively avoids certain Win/Dx calls, switch to Vulkan or even a native Linux build. Guess how many devs actually do this.

I think you answered your own question then dismissed it again with "guess how many devs do this". That isn't a "SteamDeck version". That's just a game that can use Vulkan (even on windows) and release on other operating systems too by having no windows dependencies. That's not a "steam deck version". How many devs do this isn't in debate. I get that windows has massive marketshare and steamdeck/linux/macOS very little so most devs don't bother.

Yes it is, when I can name stuff like EA, Activision, Facepunch, Bungie, PUBG, etc. that actively refuse to add support to AC on their games.
I wish I could play Cold War or FIFA 23 on Deck, yet I can play Halo Infinite. Care to guess who is supporting the Deck here?

None of them, so stop with the strawman. Just because others have broken games that only run well in windows doesn't mean official support for non-windows platforms. This isn't supporting it.

Balders Gate 3 officially supports mac/steamOS/linux desktop. That's support. Not a "steamdeck specific version" either.

They were added because it's a DirectX game like 90% of the Verified titles on Deck, what is your point here?
If it was something nefarious than it wouldn't work even after a Proton hot fix.

The point is launching a game that doesn't work on that platform isn't support for that platform. How can launching a game that doesn't work on that platform be support for that platform? That's the entire point.

A proton hotfix later has nothing to do with that. Relying on a third party to use hotfixes after the release of your game to mimick another platform doesn't mean you support that platform. Trying to intentionally break it after proton would be an antitrust case. Nobody was saying that nefarious stuff was happening.

It was added less than 2 minutes after, don't pretend this was some great point that I just slided there. And yes there are more than just pentiment and hi fi rush, Ghostwire Tokyo was verified, so was Deathloop, Redfall, Doom Eternal, Grounded, etc.

I didn't say you slid it in there. I just saw it now and addressed it. Most of which were before they were even acquired. DOOM eternal even has Vulkan support. Would not be surprised if some time in future releases they concentrate on directx only.

The list of broken ones are basically FS, Halo Infinite, MCC and Minecraft Legends, with the exception of FS all of them are working now. Please tell the norm here. This is ridiculous, I'm not claiming that they are championing the Deck but they are clearly either above the norm or not in anyway actively breaking support for it.

But please do go on, I don't think this off topic discussion is any good.

They are not as someone said "fully" or officially supporting other platforms. MS not breaking it again after proton compatibility layer patches (to better mimick windows) has nothing to do with that. Breaking it again is even still a possibility with game patches and has happened before (i think with a ubisoft game).
Third party Proton doing workarounds in a compatibility layer doesn't mean the publisher supports that platform and I'm saying MS doesn't. Saying others dont either with other games is irrelevant.

 

[SomeGit]

Balders Gate 3 officially supports mac/steamOS/linux desktop. That's support. Not a "steamdeck specific version" either.

No it does not, on Steam Deck it's the Windows version with DirectX 11.


Hell it even needed a Proton hot fix, you couldn't have picked a worse example if you tried.

 

[PaintTinJr]

They worked on getting Halo MCC Steamdeck verified, Forza Horizon 5 was heavily pushed as one of the review games for Steamdeck and HiFi Rush was Steamdeck verified day one.

Grounded and Pentiment are also Deck certified.



They've happily supported Steamdeck so far.



the games run and run well on SteamOS. That's all that matters. Nobody gives a shit it it works via Proton

You were saying? No support for the platform?

Substitute the name of your favourite console emulator - such as PC2SX, Dolphin - and then try and make the same argument that Sony or Nintendo support the those platforms for those games.

Running, and running well mean nothing if the dev/publisher didn't use an SDK for that platform to support that actual platform.

 

[Three]

No it does not, on Steam Deck it's the Windows version with DirectX 11.

Yes it does. It has Vulkan support, and was steam verified at launch and runs on macOS and Linux without proton.

Hell it even needed a Proton hot fix, you couldn't have picked a worse example if you tried.

No it didn't, game didn't release incompatible, it didn't need anything. it was playable even back in April in early access. The fact that it was getting proton fixes for the windows version doesn't mean it isn't officially supported on other platforms.

 

[SomeGit]

Substitute the name of your favourite console emulator - such as PC2SX, Dolphin - and then try and make the same argument that Sony or Nintendo support the those platforms for those games.

Running, and running well mean nothing if the dev/publisher didn't use an SDK for that platform to support that actual platform.

I've never seen Sony or Nintendo change their Anti Cheats or Anti Tamper measures to work better on emulators.

 

[SomeGit]

Yes it does. It has Vulkan support, and was steam verified at launch and runs on macOS and Linux without proton.

No it doesn't Vulkan is still in EA and they recommend DX11, even on Steam Deck.
There is no Linux build.

No it didn't, game didn't release without compatibility it didn't need anything. it was playable even back in April in early access. The fact that it was getting proton fixes for the windows version doesn't mean it isn't officially supported on other platforms.

It doesn't have a Linux build, what the hell are you talking about?

 

[mayham2199]

Yes it does. It has Vulkan support, and was steam verified at launch and runs on macOS and Linux without proton.

No it didn't, game didn't release incompatible, it didn't need anything. it was playable even back in April in early access. The fact that it was getting proton fixes for the windows version doesn't mean it isn't officially supported on other platforms.

Well on their website they do not list Linux as a supported system. Only Windows and Mac.

Support - Larian Studios | System Requirements

Windows Requirements A solid-state drive (SSD) is required to play Baldur’s Gate 3, and we recommend you install the game on yours. It’s good practice to make sure you have more space on the drive than is needed. Updating to th...

larian.com

 

[Three]

No it doesn't Vulkan is still in EA and they recommend DX11, even on Steam Deck.
There is no Linux build.



It doesn't have a Linux build, what the hell are you talking about?

Yes they recommend DX11 because that's their lead API and they are still working, there isn't an official release on other platforms yet. Vulkan is what they will use when it officially launches in September for MacOS and PS5. That's when it comes out of EA on that API. Linux isn't a given but considering they have done the work and a MacOS release I would imagine it gets it too.

 

[SomeGit]

Yes they recommend DX11 because that's their lead API and they are still working, there isn't an official release on other platforms yet. Vulkan is what they will use when it officially launches in September for MacOS and PS5. That's when it comes out of EA on that platform. Linux isn't a given but considering they have done the work and a MacOS release I would imagine it gets it too.

They don't use Vulkan on MacOS, MacOS doesn't even support Vulkan unless you use something like MoltenVK, they use Metal and on Playstation they'll most likely use GNM (or AGC whatever their API is called now). It has already launched officially on MacOS only the Ps5 version is behind (well and Xbox).
It may get a Linux build at some point, but Divinity OS 2 never got one (and it got a MacOS build).

 

[Topher]

They don't use Vulkan on MacOS, MacOS doesn't even support Vulkan unless you use something like MoltenVK, they use Metal and on Playstation they'll most likely use GNM (or AGC whatever their API is called now). It has already launched officially on MacOS only the Ps5 version is behind (well and Xbox).
It may get a Linux build at some point, but Divinity OS 2 never got one (and it got a MacOS build).

Isn't the Mac version still in early access?

 

[SomeGit]

Isn't the Mac version still in early access?

Yes I'm wrong about that. Still in EA.

 

[Three]

They don't use Vulkan on MacOS, MacOS doesn't even support Vulkan unless you use something like MoltenVK, they use Metal and on Playstation they'll most likely use GNM (or AGC whatever their API is called now). It has already launched officially on MacOS only the Ps5 version is behind (well and Xbox).
It may get a Linux build at some point, but Divinity OS 2 never got one (and it got a MacOS build).

I'm not so sure about this. Is that an assumption like mine? They have Vulkan support even if it's currently in EA. What would be the benefit of adding development for an additional platform agnostic API if you're only going to use APIs that are platform specific for each platform?

 

[SomeGit]

I'm not so sure about this. Is that an assumption like mine? They have Vulkan support even if it's currently in EA. What would be the benefit of adding development for an additional platform agnostic API if you're only going to use APIs that are platform specific for each platform?

Playstation is an assumption, I can't say for certain but GNM is much more performant and Vulkan is rarely a target for PS systems, Windows and Linux (via Proton) I know it defaults DX11 right now and Mac simply doesn't support Vulkan because Apple went out of their way to not support anything that's not Metal, even their OpenGL support is stuck in 4.1 and deprecated for a few releases now.

Edit: Dumb me, it's in the FAQ:
I'm interested in what's under the hood. What kind of MacOS port is this?
The macOS build of Baldur's Gate 3 does not use MoltenVK: it uses Metal 2.3. The Metal renderer is completely standalone. There is no Windows API code running, It's fully compiled by XCode 11.5.

 

[Three]

Playstation is an assumption, I can't say for certain but GNM is much more performant and Vulkan is rarely a target for PS systems, Windows and Linux (via Proton) I know it defaults DX11 right now and Mac simply doesn't support Vulkan because Apple went out of their way to not support anything that's not Metal, even their OpenGL support is stuck in 4.1 and deprecated for a few releases now.

Edit: Dumb me, it's in the FAQ:
I'm interested in what's under the hood. What kind of MacOS port is this?
The macOS build of Baldur's Gate 3 does not use MoltenVK: it uses Metal 2.3. The Metal renderer is completely standalone. There is no Windows API code running, It's fully compiled by XCode 11.5.

Seems like it was included for performance

FAQ: What's the difference between DX11 and Vulkan mode?
Vulkan presents a potential performance increase over DX11 in most cases, though may be slightly less stable for now. We generally recommend you use Vulkan, the default Graphics API.

 

[SomeGit]

Seems like it was included for performance

FAQ: What's the difference between DX11 and Vulkan mode?
Vulkan presents a potential performance increase over DX11 in most cases, though may be slightly less stable for now. We generally recommend you use Vulkan, the default Graphics API.

Yep in the future they'll probably use it, instead of using DX12. Like Rockstar with RDR2.

 

[JimboJones]

Substitute the name of your favourite console emulator - such as PC2SX, Dolphin - and then try and make the same argument that Sony or Nintendo support the those platforms for those games.

Running, and running well mean nothing if the dev/publisher didn't use an SDK for that platform to support that actual platform.

Official support would be great but the beauty of proton is the ability to have it work without having the original Devs stepping in.
As long as they are not actively trying to break things (on the contrary they have attempted to improve things) then it's all good.

 

[havoc00]

 

[DeepEnigma]

Must have been a bit more language in those 10 year deals. Like repeating marketing messages.

 

[havoc00]

"We're cleared to move forward with our acquisition of Activision Blizzard in 41 countries" I'm probably reading too much into this comment but sounds like they're going ahead even if the UK blocks it again.

 

[ChiefDada]

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[Topher]

"We're cleared to move forward with our acquisition of Activision Blizzard in 41 countries" I'm probably reading too much into this comment but sounds like they're going ahead even if the UK blocks it again.

I doubt it. Brad Smith has been talking about this as if closing is a foregone conclusion for months. But that's just exec talk. He knows he has to get approval from the UK.

 

[adamsapple]

"We're cleared to move forward with our acquisition of Activision Blizzard in 41 countries" I'm probably reading too much into this comment but sounds like they're going ahead even if the UK blocks it again.

I don't think it's gonna come to that at this point, I believe.

 

[ChiefDada]

"We're cleared to move forward with our acquisition of Activision Blizzard in 41 countries" I'm probably reading too much into this comment but sounds like they're going ahead even if the UK blocks it again.

I think you're misinterpreting it entirely. They say this after every announcement of a new regulatory approval. They want you to focus on the "big number" without insightful context, i.e. consideration of the countries that do and don't ultimately matter.

 

[Deleted member 848825]

"We're cleared to move forward with our acquisition of Activision Blizzard in 41 countries" I'm probably reading too much into this comment but sounds like they're going ahead even if the UK blocks it again.

You have to add in the remaining bit of his spiel "We will continue to work to resolve outstanding concerns and bring this deal to a close" That doesn't read to me like someone who's about to close without approval.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Official support would be great but the beauty of proton is the ability to have it work without having the original Devs stepping in.
As long as they are not actively trying to break things (on the contrary they have attempted to improve things) then it's all good.

But in a thread about Microsoft buying the largest 3rd party publisher for the largest franchise by revenue in the industry, it seems crazy that the monopoly PC gaming OS company that intentionally use DirectX as mechanism to tie devs to Microsoft Windows gets a free pass as "supporting SteamOS" when the very reason steam OS WINE/Proton was needed was the result of their anti-competitive monopolistic strategies., that is now spilling into cloud unfettered the second this deal closes .

 

[Vox Machina]

But is something "just working" being compatible, actually supporting it? The cloud slc by the CMA was based around that very problem where Google could use PC games on linux cloud servers because they were compatible, but the lack of support meant that neither proton or using a license of Windows Server - without suitable cadence of directX updates - was there.

Any drastic remedies imposed regarding the PC Accelerated Graphics API market would fail the proportionality test in the same way as the ones imposed by any perceived SLC in the Cloud Gaming Services market. Linux + MacOS marketshare combined is probably less still than the Cloud Gaming Market marketshare vs the total gaming market.

Moreover, the Xbox Graphics API also has competitive constraints set on it by Sony's API.

But in a thread about Microsoft buying the largest 3rd party publisher for the largest franchise by revenue in the industry, it seems crazy that the monopoly PC gaming OS company that intentionally use DirectX as mechanism to tie devs to Microsoft Windows gets a free pass as "supporting SteamOS" when the very reason steam OS WINE/Proton was needed was the result of their anti-competitive monopolistic strategies., that is now spilling into cloud unfettered the second this deal closes .

No it isn't. Sony exists in the console cloud gaming market and they have higher marketshare in the Console Accelerated Graphics API market.

 

[Vox Machina]

Exactly, if they suddenly changed their mind then we should see a clear reason WHY.

This is easy. Comity (and to a lesser extent Proportionality). After the CMA blocked the entire rest of the PLANET EARTH either approved the deal explicitly or implicitly. The MSFT appeal would have seen the CAT sent it back to the CMA based on Comity alone, and MSFT would have also argued that a block was way out of proportion to the alleged SLC, especially when their behavioral remedies are in place.

 

[Vox Machina]

Nah, what's a real diversion is your use of proton to suggest MS is supporting a platform when it isn't. Proton is a cat and mouse game of trying to add a compatibility layer to get support for a platform that the software maker doesn't actually support by mimicking one they actually do.

All this reads to me like MSFT is supporting the platform. It doesn't really matter how the platform works under-the-hood if Xbox (the publisher) is supporting it. In any case they're supporting it more than ActiBlizz do, so in the absence of any other evidence it would seem logical that more support for the platform would occur with the merger going through.

 

[JimboJones]

I

But in a thread about Microsoft buying the largest 3rd party publisher for the largest franchise by revenue in the industry, it seems crazy that the monopoly PC gaming OS company that intentionally use DirectX as mechanism to tie devs to Microsoft Windows gets a free pass as "supporting SteamOS" when the very reason steam OS WINE/Proton was needed was the result of their anti-competitive monopolistic strategies., that is now spilling into cloud unfettered the second this deal closes .

No one is giving MS a free pass i think your making this more complicated than it needs to be, it's pretty simple, proton = large amount of games work on deck, that's all people care about.

Someone said they where worried Microsoft where gonna make all their battle net games stop working on steam deck which doesn't make sense, MS seen the writing on the wall ages ago and started releasing games on steam, if battle net goes away then they will more than likely move their games to Steam and for a lot of people that will be a huge convenience.

If they keep battle net around, well I guess people will just keep using whatever method they currently use presently.

 

[PaintTinJr]

This is easy. Comity (and to a lesser extent Proportionality). After the CMA blocked the entire rest of the PLANET EARTH either approved the deal explicitly or implicitly. The MSFT appeal would have seen the CAT sent it back to the CMA based on Comity alone, and MSFT would have also argued that a block was way out of proportion to the alleged SLC, especially when their behavioral remedies are in place.

Comity certainly doesn't apply, because the CMA blocking the deal doesn't infringe on any international laws. If anything, suggesting the CMA should capitulate to lack of robust regulation in the rest of the world and just go along with things actual is against UK law to protect UK interests.

As for proportionality, that would have to be argued. It is disproportionate that only Microsoft in the high-end gaming market could afford to buy the number one 3rd party publisher with the number one yearly game by earnings, and the market they are trying to protect is nascent so currently has unknown size, and with that means unknown damage by letting an existing monopoly (in the PC gaming OS market) plant the same monopoly in the Cloud market. It isn't straight forward as a properly done regulatory argument, even if the CMA have already started waving the white flag.

 

[Vox Machina]

Comity certainly doesn't apply, because the CMA blocking the deal doesn't infringe on any international laws.

Comity doesn't mean that the CMA had to have breached international law in it's decision-making. Comity means that the CMA should respect the decisions of other nations (if those decisions are sufficiently aligned, as they are here). A comity-based argument would have certainly been used by MSFT/ATVI in the CAT appeal. In fact here is some established case law dealing with comity (in part) from our very own Justice Marcus Smith:

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2023-02/20230208%201574%20BMW%20VW%20v%20CMA%20and%202721%20R%20%28on%20Application%20of%20VW%20AG%29%20v%20CMA%20__%20Judgment_0.pdf

To quote:

It would usually be both objectionable in terms of international comity and futile in practice for Parliament to assert its authority over the subjects of another sovereign who are not within the United Kingdom.

This particular case seems to be about whether the CMA has the power to compel entities who do not have a presence in the UK to produce information. But there's some good context in there about what "comity between nations" actually means.

As for proportionality, that would have to be argued. It is disproportionate that only Microsoft in the high-end gaming market could afford to buy the number one 3rd party publisher with the number one yearly game by earnings, and the market they are trying to protect is nascent so currently has unknown size, and with that means unknown damage by letting an existing monopoly (in the PC gaming OS market) plant the same monopoly in the Cloud market. It isn't straight forward as a properly done regulatory argument, even if the CMA have already started waving the white flag.

Some things here:

1. Proportionality does not apply to the size of the acquirer or the thing being acquired. It pertains to the remedy imposed by the regulator compared to the size of the alleged SLC.
2. The "Cloud Gaming Market" does not have unknown size. They measured it. It's somewhere between 1-3% of the overall gaming market. Exceedingly small, as a percentage, to be sure.
3. Considering the above, the CMA forcing a remedy so large and onerous (blocking the transaction) to protect the "Accelerated Graphics API market within the Cloud Gaming Market" (a nascent submarket of a very small nascent market), would be so catastrophically out of proportion it would be a slam-dunk argument in appeals court (CAT).

 

[PaintTinJr]

Comity doesn't mean that the CMA had to have breached international law in it's decision-making. Comity means that the CMA should respect the decisions of other nations (if those decisions are sufficiently aligned, as they are here). A comity-based argument would have certainly been used by MSFT/ATVI in the CAT appeal. In fact here is some established case law dealing with comity (in part) from our very own Justice Marcus Smith:

https://www.catribunal.org.uk/sites/cat/files/2023-02/20230208%201574%20BMW%20VW%20v%20CMA%20and%202721%20R%20%28on%20Application%20of%20VW%20AG%29%20v%20CMA%20__%20Judgment_0.pdf

To quote:



This particular case seems to be about whether the CMA has the power to compel entities who do not have a presence in the UK to produce information. But there's some good context in there about what "comity between nations" actually means.



Some things here:

1. Proportionality does not apply to the size of the acquirer or the thing being acquired. It pertains to the remedy imposed by the regulator compared to the size of the alleged SLC.
2. The "Cloud Gaming Market" does not have unknown size. They measured it. It's somewhere between 1-3% of the overall gaming market. Exceedingly small, as a percentage, to be sure.
3. Considering the above, the CMA forcing a remedy so large and onerous (blocking the transaction) to protect the "Accelerated Graphics API market within the Cloud Gaming Market" (a nascent submarket of a very small nascent market), would be so catastrophically out of proportion it would be a slam-dunk argument in appeals court (CAT).

That's still not right, the size of the potential nascent cloud market has Microsoft on record saying it is worldwide smartphone number devices.

And as for your interpretation of comity, it had no impact on the CMA in recent years blocking a US airline from buying a US airline ticket booking technology company, where the airline didn't operate in the UK, but the market impact of the merger would still disadvantage UK customers.

Microsoft and ATVI would need to be completely out of the UK, and their goods all be removed and their goods have zero impact on the UK cloud market for that argument to be the slam dunk you think it is.

 

[Edmund]

Do you guys who post here actually play videogames?

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

Do you guys who post here actually play videogames?

 

[Vox Machina]

That's still not right, the size of the potential nascent cloud market has Microsoft on record saying it is worldwide smartphone number devices.

Doesn't really matter what any individual entity's opinion is. The CMA uses a number of different sources of analysis when it does it's market analysis, and that's the number they arrived at.

And as for your interpretation of comity, it had no impact on the CMA in recent years blocking a US airline from buying a US airline ticket booking technology company, where the airline didn't operate in the UK, but the market impact of the merger would still disadvantage UK customers.

Microsoft and ATVI would need to be completely out of the UK, and their goods all be removed and their goods have zero impact on the UK cloud market for that argument to be the slam dunk you think it is.

I'm unfamiliar with that case. Maybe they should have gone to appeals court. Microsoft did.

And no, using a comity-based argument doesn't demand that you remove yourself from that regulator's market at all. You're getting confused here. The example I showed did have to do with an entity that didn't have presence in the UK, but that had no bearing regarding the use of comity.

Comity just means "respect the decisions of other states, especially those with a 'territorial nexus' to the issue at hand"

Do you guys who post here actually play videogames?

Baldur's Gate 3 on the main monitor, GAF on the secondary monitor. This is the way.

 

[freefornow]

No, thank you Lulu my queen!

 

[Three]

All this reads to me like MSFT is supporting the platform. It doesn't really matter how the platform works under-the-hood if Xbox (the publisher) is supporting it. In any case they're supporting it more than ActiBlizz do, so in the absence of any other evidence it would seem logical that more support for the platform would occur with the merger going through.

To me it reads like the publisher isn't supporting it but Valve is trying to mimick windows to get game support for their platform after games from said publisher have launched broken on the platform because the publisher didn't officially support it.

 

[Vox Machina]

To me it reads like the publisher isn't supporting it but Valve is trying to mimick windows to get game support for their platform after games from said publisher have launched broken on the platform because the publisher didn't officially support it.

Supporting a platform has nothing to do with how that platform works under the hood. That's like saying EA doesn't support PS5 because they don't contribute to the PS5 OS's codebase.

Could you give us a definition of what "support" means to you?

Edit: also

To me it reads like the publisher isn't supporting it but Valve is trying to mimick windows to get game support for their platform after games from said publisher have launched broken on the platform because the publisher didn't officially support it.

So Valve decided to use Proton because Xbox games launched broken on Proton because Proton is trying to mimic DirectX. What type of circular logic is that?

Valve just decided to roll the dice on Proton. They could have also used Vulkan, OpenGL, or asked Google to license the Stadia OS Graphics API (linux-based), or asked Sony to license the Playstation OS Graphics API (also linux-based). Nobody forced Valve to use Proton, and Microsoft isn't beholden to stop development on DirectX simply because Proton exists.

 

[Three]

Support a platform has nothing to do with how that platform works under the hood. That's like saying EA doesn't support PS5 because they don't contribute to the PS5 OS's codebase.

Could you give us a definition of what "support" means to you?

That's a pretty daft way of looking at it. If EA didn't officially release games on PS. They were broken and you putting your xbox disc in didn't help but Sony was trying to mimick an xbox API to make it run would you consider EA as supporting PS? That's the proper analogy.

My definition of publisher supporting a platform would mean not releasing broken games, testing on the platform, providing official customer support if it doesn't work. That's what I consider supporting a platform.

 

[Vox Machina]

That's a pretty daft way of looking at it. EA if PS5 didn't officially release games on PS. They were broken and you putting your xbox didn't help but Sony was trying to mimick an xbox API to make it run would you consider EA as supporting PS? That's the proper analogy.

I literally have no idea what you're even attempting to say.

Let me try to decipher what your thrust here is:

Because booting up some games using a graphics API that they were not written to _sometimes_ makes things broken that means that the company that wrote those games "isn't supporting that platform" AND it is incumbent upon them to support that platform (that they didn't write, or own) because.... reasons?

Lets use another analogy: If Google tried to boot up God of War (2018), a game written for a Linux OS, on Stadia OS (linux, but which does not support he Playstation Graphics API) and it crashed (because of course it would) then... Sony would have been at fault for that "broken game" and it would have been incumbent upon Sony to support the Stadia OS's Graphics API with its releases?

My definition of support would mean not releasing broken games, testing on the platform, providing official customer support if it doesn't work. That's what I consider supporting a platform.

I'm sorry but this is an absolutely insane take. The games aren't broken on the graphics APIs they were written to run on. Other companies attempting to run those games on other Graphics APIs and even underlying Operating Systems making them "broken" is the issue here. It's not Microsoft's fault Valve decided to use Proton and decided to mimic DirectX instead of using a different API and getting/paying for/encouraging native support.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Doesn't really matter what any individual entity's opinion is. The CMA uses a number of different sources of analysis when it does it's market analysis, and that's the number they arrived at.



I'm unfamiliar with that case. Maybe they should have gone to appeals court. Microsoft did.

And no, using a comity-based argument doesn't demand that you remove yourself from that regulator's market at all. You're getting confused here. The example I showed did have to do with an entity that didn't have presence in the UK, but that had no bearing regarding the use of comity.

Comity just means "respect the decisions of other states, especially those with a 'territorial nexus' to the issue at hand"

You are arguing in bad faith if you think they aren't defending the future size of the market

The size of a nascent market (in the UK) of how big it might get, will always be "how long's a piece of string?", unknown is a reasonable basis by which parents erron the side of caution to rule things out for new born children, and I'm pretty sure that's the default position for nascent markets for the CMA.

As for comity, how does that argument go down with the judge? Better or worse than the FTC case where they choose not to argue that the judge should recuse herself?

Arguing "comity" seems like a no-hoper argument. We can't defend against the evidence and win on merit, so we'll argue the CMA doesn't have the right to have a final determination on our merger, and by extension we don't recognise your authority on the issue, too good judge, but please rule in our favour anyway. Is that really the argument?

 

[Three]

I literally have no idea what you're even attempting to say.

Let me try to decipher what your thrust here is.

Really? Then I guess we can end the conversation here. The rest is pretty dumb. Does Sony support google Stadia if google legally got the game running on Stadia?

 

[Vox Machina]

You are arguing in bad faith if you think they aren't defending the future size of the market

The size of a nascent market (in the UK) of how big it might get, will always be "how long's a piece of string?", unknown is a reasonable basis by which parents air on the side of caution to rule things out for new born children, and I'm pretty sure that's the default position for nascent market for the CMA.

As for comity, how does that argument go down with the judge? Better or worse than the FTC case where they choose not to argue that the judge should recuse herself?

Arguing "comity" seems like a no-hoper argument. We can't defend against the evidence and win on merit, so we'll argue the CMA doesn't have the right to have a final determination on our merger, and by extension we don't recognise your authority on the issue, too good judge, but please rule in our favour anyway. Is that really the argument?

As would be their right by UK law.

Really? Then I guess we can end the conversation here. The rest is pretty dumb. Does Sony support google Stadia if google legally got the game running on Stadia?

No, and I wouldn't expect them to. The fact that Valve somehow got Forza Horizon 5 to boot on Steam OS does not mean Microsoft is responsible for supporting Steam OS either, and yet, they do!

 

[Three]

No, and I wouldn't expect them to. The fact that Valve somehow got Forza Horizon 5 to boot on Steam OS does not mean Microsoft is responsible for supporting Steam OS either, and yet, they do!

Then why are you trying to suggest MS is supporting the platform and it doesn't matter what the details are? Saying that it's like saying EA doesn't support PS5.

 

[Varteras]

Can't leave you people alone for 5 minutes.

 

[Vox Machina]

Then why are you trying to suggest MS is supporting the platform and it doesn't matter what the details are?

Because they are. They're actively working with internal teams and middleware partners to enable their games to run on graphics APIs and operating systems that those games were not designed to run on, even when they're not required or beholden to. That's support.