And he's back...
splattered
to senshitsu, bro. He may lean green, but he's no baptized disciple of all things Microsoft like shit-sage. Just sayin...
Yup i know <3
Don't compare my man
I'm just giving you shit man.
That's true but it's possible to compare MS revenue from MGS vs their B2P as a publisher.
Yeah but that's exactly where the EC has decided there is no competition concerns and where there is no behavioural remedies. B2P and MGS. I suspect because the market situation is different in the EU from that of the UK.
Both. Consumer for B2P and service provider for MGS service.
There is no such thing as the status quo. I'd argue in the video games industry there never has been with the way new sources of revenue and audiences have always changed over the years. The industry is currently in a transition to services and GaaP. A transition that MS are trying to capitalise on and dominate. Instead of Activision doing what the likes of EA, Ubisoft and in part TakeTwo (recently acquiring gameclub) did independently, they sought business opportunities with a platform player to ride this transition out with them.
I can see their reasoning. They believe that they are helping cloud gaming by making something happen that wouldn't have happened otherwise. I just don't think it will play out that well. Cloud gaming could take off with Activision being independent and Activisions refusal to allow cloud or subscription gaming with their game license would be what's actually irrational. Why wouldn't they have wanted to support cloud if it meant greater reach for mtx and battlepass? Lost sales is understandable but if MGS and B2P are the same market and MGS is 'good for consumers' in price then you would have seen increased competition for Activision and COD instead if they adamantly refused.
When you say free license you mean from providers who MS approached for an agreement to stream from MS' store or MS' MGS service? All the cloud providers and users would have become MS customers instead.
Thought that was Phils legacy.
Not sure what that's referring to. I was talking about his whole " I'm leaving " only to post again a few minutes later.You mean the big boy comment?
Before
After
I think they could. And depending on how much changes the CMA may have to make to their analysis because of the CAT it could be to Microsoft's advantage.
Sage. But feel free to leave anyway.
Regulator do however look at what's currently the "status quo" as well as what's likely to happen otherwise you cant make decisions.
As far as I read the remedies, you could buy it from PS and get a license for PS premium if PS wanted it to happen. Also any providers are free to ignore or request the free license. The interesting thing would be if MS is committed in anyway to support Steam/PS in terms of selling the game.
Both iirc didn't ultimately split MGS from B2P for console distribution (need to check cloud). Both came to very much the same conclusion which was that it didn't make sense for MS to pull ABK from PS.
I vote for the salute emoji so we can honor all the fallen soldiers of this thread
Yeah, July 28th.
Few years ago they did say they'll let you play the game you already own on Xbox via Xcloud.
It's still not the same market.
Happy to be corrected, but I think their argument is that cloud gaming is simply a mechanism for accessing your gaming library, rather than a wholly unique type of gaming that can only be played that way and that way *alone* (like, for example, VR).
It's a false argument. Especially when they are gatekeepers to the majority of the infrastructure and IPs with this purchase.
But didn't the EU also say it was a new emergent market?
I don't think it's a 'false' argument. It's 'an' argument. It's simply a judgement call that regulators need to make.
Oh, it will. It's what they all want, and what the WEF wants.
They do but the regulators agree that we are in a transition. Lina has mentioned it when speaking and the CMA have too expecting the market shift to cloud and the importance of subs. Regulators agree we are not in a status quo.
Absolutely they want to get paid. Even now they want to get paid $70B. Take two for example, somebody who like Activison doesn't have a subscription service like EA or Ubisoft do, had agreements with Stadia and PS Now. I find it hard to believe and frankly irrational that Activison would not care about subscription or cloud. Especially as they have had games on subscriptions before as early as last year. They just haven't had a need to do COD day one because it's a big seller. I think they slowly independently would have there too if competitors started chipping away at its audience on subs or f2p titles but they wanted both with the deal. Merge with the dominant MGS service, keep COD highly dominant on those services and cloud, get paid $70B and still sell to those who aren't on the dominant MGS service.
But then you would have to pay $70 - 80, yes? The initial point was that nobody would switch to another cloud provider if it meant a $70-80 original license and MS are free to set terms for original licence for competing MGS or B2P stores.
I'm not sure if they split them. I'm not referring to Playstation but the MGS. The CMA as far as I know did have concerns about MGS service competition. That doesn't necessarily mean Playstation specifically but it would likely include them as a competitor there.
They might well have. I suppose it comes down to definition of 'market'.
Status
Summary of application published on 26 May 2023. A case management conference has been listed for 2pm on 30 May 2023.
Events
- 30 May 2023 | 2pm (time estimate of half a day) Case management conference
And this is possibly the crux of the issue and, I hold my hands up and admit I haven't got the first clue.
It's because we don't have interest in it.
the moment idas posted this they all ignored it
but when someone posts some copium they all say intersting and very good
I sincerely don't know.
