Support NeoGAF

[MasterCornholio]

I was expecting some right killer arguments from Microsoft, but honestly, this is mostly stuff I already read on this forum and on twitter. Are these guys just going through the motions at this point?

Maybe it's just they have to put up the appearance that they want this to go through.

ABK can't say they abandoned it with the appeal.

 

[reksveks]

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.

That's different to there not being a status quo. CMA and FTC are focusing on longer term views doesn't mean there isn't a status quo and it doesn't mean that their predictions are going to be true.

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.

Agreed on this point but it's all speculation.

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 may have done but it wasn't a seperate market and therefore couldn't be brought up as a ToH.

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.

Slighty confused, but as I read the currently vague information if you buy on Steam or the MS store or the PS, as a consumer, you are free to use it on another cloud streaming provider if they have get the license from MS which is free and offered to anyone. I would like to see if that's correct when the full info comes out.

The 'license' for MGS services is obviously much more down to a negotiations between MS and the MGS provider and that's one issue. What terms would you talking about for B2P stores? Revenue split models?

 

[Topher]

Maybe it's just they have to put up the appearance that they want this to go through.

ABK can't say they abandoned it with the appeal.

Yeah, not sure really. This appeal just feels.......lacking.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Yeah, not sure really. This appeal just feels.......lacking.

Maybe they feel confident in their lobbying efforts. Greasing them palms.

 

[GHG]

Maybe it's just they have to put up the appearance that they want this to go through.

ABK can't say they abandoned it with the appeal.

Activision also have to appeal, if not Microsoft can claim they didn't do everything they could to try and get the deal through and waive the $3 billion payment.

 

[reksveks]

There are competitors in the cloud who have nothing to do with consoles. So how are consoles and cloud the same market?

They were part of the same market during the Bethesda deal. Competitors/market imo hasn't changed that much.

Given the EC did basically make a couple of remedies for cloud gaming, it doesn't seem like it's going to fly though. That's one of the issues.

 

[DeepEnigma]

They were part of the same market during the Bethesda deal. Competitors/market imo hasn't changed that much.

Given the EC did basically make a couple of remedies for cloud gaming, it doesn't seem like it's going to fly though. That's one of the issues.

Bethesda < impactful than ABK and ABK is > impactful stacked on top of already allowed Bethesda.

Context and nuance.

With that said, Bethesda did impact Stadia, per Google, FWIW.

 

[Topher]

They were part of the same market during the Bethesda deal. Competitors/market imo hasn't changed that much.

Given the EC did basically make a couple of remedies for cloud gaming, it doesn't seem like it's going to fly though. That's one of the issues.

Bethesda deal wasn't in the same ballpark as having an effect on any of the markets though. That's why that deal never even got to phase 2.

Activision also have to appeal, if not Microsoft can claim they didn't do everything they could to try and get the deal through and waive the $3 billion payment.

Do they? In the merger agreement I thought it said it was Microsoft's responsibility to get through regulators.

But ABK did hire a lawyer so I guess you might be right.

 

[reksveks]

Bethesda deal wasn't in the same ballpark as having an effect on any of the markets though. That's why that deal never even got to phase 2.

Size of the deal shouldn't imo change the definition of the market but it will change the impact on the market.

 

[reksveks]

Bethesda < impactful than ABK and ABK is > impactful stacked on top of already allowed Bethesda.

Context and nuance.

See posted comment above. The size does matter to the impact but it's relationship to what is a 'market' is tenuous personally.

 

[Topher]

Size of the deal shouldn't imo the definition of the market but it will change the impact on the market.

Maybe I didn't follow you. Were you saying the cloud and console were part of the same market during the Bethesda acquisition?

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

I get that perhaps there'll never be a truly 'Cloud-only' game, but couldn't the CMA just cite the Microsoft Flight Simulator game released a few years ago to demonstrate a real world example of a video game (published by Microsoft of all companies) that utilizes the Azure cloud technology to enable an enhanced version of the game that provides even more detailed terrain data that the offline version of the same game doesn't have access to? In fact, I believe Eurogamer covered this game and the technology it uses in detail in this article from a few years ago: Eurogamer

Granted, it's just one game, but the CMA is citing the cloud gaming market as a nascent market, so they could demonstrate an example of a video game that has access to more detailed graphical fidelity that is only available via the Azure cloud that isn't available for gamers playing on an offline native version of Xbox hardware, and thus that there's indeed potential for cloud-only video games to be developed in the future.

 

[DeepEnigma]

See posted comment above. The size does matter to the impact but it's relationship to what is a 'market' is tenuous personally.

And Bethesda did have an impact, Stadia shuttered. CMA took that into account when Google submitted that to them, thus ABK, the largest third party publisher in the world with hundreds of IPs, and a market cap larger than that of Nintendo, and more than 2/3rd than that of Sony... yes, it would have a much greater impact stacked on top of Bethesda.

This is not in a vacuum.

 

[Bernoulli]

Bethesda deal wasn't in the same ballpark as having an effect on any of the markets though. That's why that deal never even got to phase 2.



Do they? In the merger agreement I thought it said it was Microsoft's responsibility to get through regulators.

But ABK did hire a lawyer so I guess you might be right.

in the end activision can also appeal and then decide to not renew in july if they think they are worth more than 70b

 

[reksveks]

Maybe I didn't follow you. Were you saying the cloud and console were part of the same market during the Bethesda acquisition?

Yeah, they were.

I am saying the size of the company that you buy doesn't change the market definitions.

Assume that this market definition stands, if MS went and bought some dev just above 75m limit (or whatever it is) , cloud gaming doesn't just disappear (in theory) as a market definition or become a part of console+pc gaming again.

Obviously their impact on the cloud gaming market and the console+pc gaming is going to be much smaller.

 

[Topher]

I get that perhaps there'll never be a truly 'Cloud-only' game, but couldn't the CMA just cite the Microsoft Flight Simulator game released a few years ago to demonstrate a real world example of a video game (published by Microsoft of all companies) that utilizes the Azure cloud technology to enable an enhanced version of the game that provides even more detailed terrain data that the offline version of the same game doesn't have access to? In fact, I believe Eurogamer covered this game and the technology it uses in detail in this article from a few years ago: Eurogamer

Granted, it's just one game, but the CMA is citing the cloud gaming market as a nascent market, so they could demonstrate an example of a video game that has access to more detailed graphical fidelity that is only available via the Azure cloud that isn't available for gamers playing on an offline native version of Xbox hardware, and thus that there's indeed potential for cloud-only video games to be developed in the future.

Utilizing cloud technology isn't a cloud market. I don't think a "cloud only" game is necessary, though, to define a market. There are companies whose entire existence is centered around cloud gaming. Microsoft highlighted such companies by handing out 10 year deals to them. Problem is that those 10 year deals put Microsoft dead center in the middle of the cloud gaming market.

Yeah, they were.

I am saying the size of the company that you buy doesn't change the market definitions.

Assume that this market definition stands, if MS went and bought some dev just above 75m limit (or whatever it is) , cloud gaming doesn't just disappear (in theory) as a market definition or become a part of console+pc gaming again.

Obviously their impact on the cloud gaming market and the console+pc gaming is going to be much smaller.

They were......based on whose definition? I get what you are saying about he size of the acquisition, but I wasn't aware that CMA or anyone else defined cloud/console as the same.

 

[reksveks]

And Bethesda did have an impact, Stadia shuttered. CMA took that into account when Google submitted that to them, thus ABK, the largest third party publisher in the world with hundreds of IPs, and a market cap larger than that of Nintendo, and more than 2/3rd than that of Sony... yes, it would have a much greater impact stacked on top of Bethesda.

This is not in a vacuum.

That's talking about the impact of a deal, not what the market definitions is based on. I am not saying ABK was not going to have a much larger impact than Bethesda.

They were......based on whose definition?

The EC did, the CMA didn't look at the deal.

 

[DeepEnigma]

That's talking about the impact of a deal, not what the market definitions is based on. I am not saying ABK was not going to have a much larger impact than Bethesda.


The EC did, the CMA didn't look at the deal.

Well, we know the EC has been dodgy when it comes to these deals. They love to pass then levy fines years and years later.

 

[Topher]

The EC did, the CMA didn't look at the deal.

But now EC apparently doesn't see the two as the same market since they required remedies, as you said.

 

[Sleepwalker]

Stadia had some game(s) that were exclusive and not playable natively, it wasnt until they shut down that they became available to download (not sure if all did)

 

[reksveks]

But now EC apparently doesn't see the two as the same market since they required remedies, as you said.

Yep, that's why I dont think the appeal will work

 

[DeepEnigma]

Yep, that's why I dont think the appeal will work

 

[Bernoulli]

Let's say the appeal works and it goes back to CMA
And CMA decides it needs structural remedies can MS do another appeal ?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Let's say the appeal works and it goes back to CMA
And CMA decides it needs structural remedies can MS do another appeal ?

I don't believe so.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Let's say the appeal works and it goes back to CMA
And CMA decides it needs structural remedies can MS do another appeal ?

Question is does Microsoft want go through several years without making acquisitions?

 

[Bernoulli]

Explained:
the bit about the application means the CAT can dismiss the application, ie the appeal.

Application = appeal, unequivocally.


in this context it means CAT can dismiss Microsoft’s appeal (which is called an application pursuant to the Enterprise Act for review of a decision of the CMA)

So the CAT can dismiss the appeal, it would be funny if they do it

 

[Three]

That's different to there not being a status quo. CMA and FTC are focusing on longer term views doesn't mean there isn't a status quo and it doesn't mean that their predictions are going to be true.

I agree that the future is never certain but what I meant by the status quo is that there has never been a static status quo. Their predictions may not turn out to be true but they can see current trends and data that show the growth of subscriptions and cloud.

Slighty confused, but as I read the currently vague information if you buy on Steam or the MS store or the PS, as a consumer, you are free to use it on another cloud streaming provider if they have get the license from MS which is free and offered to anyone. I would like to see if that's correct when the full info comes out.

This doesn’t automatically allow streaming from anywhere. I had a previous length discussion with Firefly on this. Some clarification from the EC would be nice but this is the only way I can see it working. The license you get for the game doesn't prevent the consumer or service provider from streaming with that license but it doesn't mean you can stream anywhere from this store to that streaming platform. Each platform would have its own goals and model.

The 'license' for MGS services is obviously much more down to a negotiations between MS and the MGS provider and that's one issue. What terms would you talking about for B2P stores? Revenue split models?

Negotiations that MS can legally completely shut down because there is no behavioural remedy that prevents it on the original licence. Not just revenue split models but whether they wish to enter a publisher agreement in the first place to sell on that store or MGS. If Google (if it was still alive) , or Amazon wanted the games in their MGS, or B2P store MS can legally reject it on their platform. The EC don't care about the inability to gain a licence for B2P and MGS. They see no competition concerns there because they believe there is no incentive for MS to reject the likes of Amazon, Google, PS etc. They see no concerns there, they don't want the cloud gaming concerns though so they've ignored the original licence concerns and have prohibited MS from blocking cloud providers or users who can obtain the original licence. I don't think that's going to do cloud any favours. It's just going to make it difficult to obtain that original licence or alternatively become a MS customer instead where you're using windows servers to serve MS gamepass/store ecosystem users.

 

[Topher]

Question is does Microsoft want go through several years without making acquisitions?

 

[DeepEnigma]

So the CAT can dismiss the appeal, it would be funny if they do it

Only problem is, even appeals are big business and almost endless money to be made. It's like a blank check, essentially.

 

[Stardust_Dragon]

Utilizing cloud technology isn't a cloud market. I don't think a "cloud only" game is necessary, though, to define a market. There are companies whose entire existence is centered around cloud gaming. Microsoft highlighted such companies by handing out 10 year deals to them. Problem is that those 10 year deals put Microsoft dead center in the middle of the cloud gaming market.

True, it probably isn't absolutely necessary for the CMA to cite the potential for 'cloud-only' games, but I don't think it would be harmful to their defense to justify the block of the Microsoft-ABK merger, and it would only help bolster their case further. Like, this excerpt from the Eurogamer article seems revealing as to the potential of the cloud for future video games:

Using a base mesh and textures, the game utilises your internet connection to stream even higher quality terrain data onto your PC as you play, via the Azure cloud. It is a novel way to boost the game's fidelity and diversity that I've yet to see in any other release. This is indeed a fully fledged 'power of the cloud' implementation that delivers something that just wouldn't be possible to the same fidelity with a conventional download. It's a system that's also relatively efficient: over 10 hours of gameplay, I noted downloads of around seven gigabytes in total.

It's not just environment detail that's streamed in either. Flight Simulator also accurately renders the real-time world location of actual planes in your vicinity. Weather is accurately simulated based on other real world data too, down to thunder storms and cloud rendering. The aim is to represent real world flight and weather conditions 24/7 - it's ambitious, it's unique and it works. (Source)

Reading the above, it doesn't seem like it's just visual terrain graphics being processed by Azure but other gaming features that normally a video game console's CPU would be calculating, so I'd have to think that if the CMA wanted to, they could cite the Azure cloud technology being used for a future potential Call of Duty Warzone and/or DMZ equivalent mode being run fully on the Azure cloud if Microsoft acquires ABK, and it doesn't really sound that far fetched considering, to my understanding, Warzone + DMZ are already fully online modes as of now, with no offline modes available. Of course, a counterargument could be that there'll still be campaign mode available for future CODs so not everything will be reliant on cloud-gaming for future COD entries, but then there's already a precedent set for a COD game without a solo campaign mode in Black Ops 4 back in 2018.

 

[Bernoulli]

I hope they do, the more they are stuck in this the slower their consolidation plan will be

 

[feynoob]

 

[MasterCornholio]

They should start selling it then.

 

[Bernoulli]

This is exactly a repeat of ARM/Nvidia

Here are some parts:

In a statement provided to The Verge, an Nvidia spokesperson stated that “we will continue to work to demonstrate that this transaction will benefit the industry and promote competition.” The company also reiterated its commitment to “preserving Arm’s open licensing model and ensuring that its IP is available to all interested licensees, current and future,” arguing that the merger would “boost competition, [and] create more opportunities for all Arm licensees and expand the Arm ecosystem” thanks to Nvidia’s added resources.

Huang acknowledged back in August that the regulatory review would likely take longer than the company’s originally estimated 18-month timeframe but told the Financial Times that “[we’re] confident in the deal, we’re confident regulators should recognize the benefits of the acquisition.” The original plan was for the merger to be completed by March 2022 (although Nvidia’s deal with Softbank gives it until the end of the year to clear things with regulators). But with the FTC now suing to block the deal, it seems that Nvidia and Arm’s list of hurdles has just gotten much longer.

 

[adamsapple]

They should start selling it then.

Selling what ?

 

[Dick Jones]

Explained:
the bit about the application means the CAT can dismiss the application, ie the appeal.

Application = appeal, unequivocally.


in this context it means CAT can dismiss Microsoft’s appeal (which is called an application pursuant to the Enterprise Act for review of a decision of the CMA)

So the CAT can dismiss the appeal, it would be funny if they do it

The CAT should step aside. Sony had loads of cat playing games in the recent show and there is a significant conflict of interest

 

[MasterCornholio]

Selling what ?

The deal if they are confident in it going through. I mean they did it before when they thought they wouldn't have any issues. Heck you did the same if I'm not wrong.



Kidding about the you part BTW.

Anyways just keep an eye on their mood on twitter. If Brad Smith or Phil starts celebrating it then good things are probably coming for the deal. I'll add Lulu as well.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Double Post

 

[Elios83]

Super weak case, many of their grounds are just fantasy and they're basically clinging to a re-interpretation of the market that could make them look weaker in the cloud market which is something that was pushed by fanatics even on message boards.
If this is the best Lord Panic has found....

 

[sainraja]

I never said i was leaving haha i just said i'm ready to get off this ride. It's too much of a distraction for both Sony and MS at this point. Phil's legacy is going to be trying to bring games to everyone with a smart phone while Jim's legacy is going to be trying to keep games away from Xbox. haha

Xbox/Phil is also keeping games away from Playstation, or did you forget about Zenimax/Bethesda? (Also, and as reported by someone else, Xbox under Phil refused Bungie because they [Bungie] didn't want to go exclusive.)

I know you are a little soft towards Xbox/Phil, but you could have tried to be a little more impartial.

Given where we are this generation, they should both fully embrace putting games that are multiplayer centric on each other's consoles and try to standout with single-player games.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Also, and as reported by someone else, Xbox under Phil refused Bungie because they [Bungie] didn't want to go exclusive

Source please?

I really don't know much about rhe Bungie acquisition. Only what Sony did to aquire them but I'm not aware of thr others that tried. It really did seem like a weird acquisition to me when it was first announced.

 

[sainraja]

Source please?

I really don't know much about rhe Bungie acquisition. Only what Sony did to aquire them but I'm not aware of thr others that tried. It really did seem like a weird acquisition to me when it was first announced.

Someone posted about it here. I don't remember who it was. The way he was saying it, I thought he was sure, and it was understood to be true since no one called him out on it.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Someone posted about it here. I don't remember who it was. The way he was saying it, I thought it was understood since no one called him out on it.

I don't think I heard it before which is why I'm asking. I mean if Microsofts wants every developer they buy to be exclusive to Xbox that would make sense. Sony proved that future titles like Marathon wouldn't be console exclusive. Not sure if Microsoft would have done the same.

 

[sainraja]

Source please?

I really don't know much about rhe Bungie acquisition. Only what Sony did to aquire them but I'm not aware of thr others that tried. It really did seem like a weird acquisition to me when it was first announced.

Here is what I found:

Microsoft Reportedly Tried To Buy Bungie And ‘Destiny 2’ But It Cost Too Much

Microsoft has reportedly tried to make a deal to buy Bungie multiple times, but it’s always fallen through because the price is too high.

www.forbes.com

Still reading, but it doesn't say what the poster was saying.

EDIT
The more I look into it, the more it looks to be false or not as stated; I am only finding denials by both parties about it being true.

 

[RedC]

I don't think I heard it before which is why I'm asking. I mean if Microsofts wants every developer they buy to be exclusive to Xbox that would make sense. Sony proved that future titles like Marathon wouldn't be console exclusive. Not sure if Microsoft would have done the same.

That's because Bungie negotiated it as part of their acquisition and Sony agreed.

 

[sainraja]

I don't think I heard it before which is why I'm asking. I mean if Microsofts wants every developer they buy to be exclusive to Xbox that would make sense. Sony proved that future titles like Marathon wouldn't be console exclusive. Not sure if Microsoft would have done the same.

The closest statement I found somewhat validating it is this and it is a weak one:

"In an interview with Marty O’Donnell on a youtube channel (forgot who exactly) he said they almost did go back to Microsoft but they refused to let Bungie own the Destiny IP."

And if that is true, we are assuming Bungie wanted to own the IP to be stay multiplatform, which is kind of proven with Sony's acquisition of Bungie.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Here is what I found:

Microsoft Reportedly Tried To Buy Bungie And ‘Destiny 2’ But It Cost Too Much

Microsoft has reportedly tried to make a deal to buy Bungie multiple times, but it’s always fallen through because the price is too high.

www.forbes.com

Still reading, but it doesn't say what the poster was saying.

EDIT
The more I look into it, the more it looks to be false or not as stated; I am only finding denials by both parties about it being true.

Pete Hines said it was false from that article. Plus Jeff Grubb isn't 100% reliable. I'm going with Microsoft never even tried buying Bungie in the first place.

However that doesn't mean Bungies independence and unique situation isn't due to their demands.

 

[MasterCornholio]

That's because Bungie negotiated it as part of their acquisition and Sony agreed.

They probably value their expertise more than having a few games exclusive to their platform. However that doesn't mean there won't be things like exclusive betas, dlc and other similar items.

 

[sainraja]

Pete Hines said it was false from that article. Plus Jeff Grubb isn't 100% reliable. I'm going with Microsoft never even tried buying Bungie in the first place.

However that doesn't mean Bungies independence and unique situation isn't due to their demands.

It was just what I saw the poster saying, and I think I acknowledged it in my post, that the article itself does not support the claim, but you may have missed the edit. My mistake was that I didn't vet it until now lol.

 

[sainraja]

Pete Hines said it was false from that article. Plus Jeff Grubb isn't 100% reliable. I'm going with Microsoft never even tried buying Bungie in the first place.

However that doesn't mean Bungies independence and unique situation isn't due to their demands.

Found the source:


Article on it

Rumor: Microsoft and Bungie Discussed Potential Acquisition Before Sony Deal

Sony Interactive Entertainment this week announced it is acquiring Destiny developer, Bungie, for $3.6 billion. However, it appears Bungie at one point [...]

www.vgchartz.com