Riky
$MSFT
EC confirmed they passed it because Xbox doesn’t sell there. That’s not the case for UK.
Irrelevant, the console part was passed, cloud gaming is the hold up.
EC confirmed they passed it because Xbox doesn’t sell there. That’s not the case for UK.
There is - an inferiority complex-ridden Sony proponent acting out his insecurity in an Xbox thread.
According to all the Sony shills on this forum it is.
Exactly my thoughts when reading through this thread - or almost any other thread. How much does Sony pay you?
That doesn't say it "doesn't sell" does it? It talks about market share, come on stop with the misquoting.![]()
EU explains Microsoft Activision deal approval - and why it disagrees with the UK's block
The boss of the European Commission has explained in detail why her agency approved Microsoft's $68.7bn Activision Bliz…www.eurogamer.net
I didn’t speak about Xbox, I just said why they passed it, which is not irrelevant.Irrelevant, the console part was passed, cloud gaming is the hold up.
All companies put out BS pretending their stance is good for the industry. I don't pay too much attention to it and don't believe it's unique or particularly extreme.True, but I'm referring to their statement, "We see this as a benefit to cloud gaming," which is a load of horseshit.
Nvidia doesn't see this as a benefit to cloud gaming (it is in fact to opposite if one company holds the major IPs and all other cloud gaming companies are basically that one company's customers). They simply see it as their own temporary benefit and pretending as if it's good for the industry.
There is the possibility that Boosteroid is doing it without the explicit permission of ABK similar to how Nvidia did that when they went from Beta to general release. Unfortunately we probably won't get a clear answer to this unless someone brings it up in court. Would be an interestingSeveral Activision-Blizzard games are already available on Boosteroid.
Except that's not the same as EC passing cause of the consoles sales numbers, they passed it cause they accepted the cloud remedies.![]()
EU explains Microsoft Activision deal approval - and why it disagrees with the UK's block
The boss of the European Commission has explained in detail why her agency approved Microsoft's $68.7bn Activision Bliz…www.eurogamer.net
If they didn't accept the remedies then the deal would have been block regardlessly.Vestager then discussed the issue of cloud gaming, the other major area of contention for regulators - the one where Europe and the UK ultimately disagreed.
Market share = sales.That doesn't say it "doesn't sell" does it? It talks about market share, come on stop with the misquoting.
I provided the quote for why they passed it.Except that's not the same as EC passing cause of the consoles sales numbers, they passed it cause they accepted the cloud remedies.
As soon as the likes of you stop their accusations and propaganda - sure.can you stop with these ?
Try looking in a mirror.Whom should I start with?
Bernoulli or harry mason 1989?
I didn’t speak about Xbox, I just said why they passed it, which is not irrelevant.
EC confirmed they passed it because Xbox doesn’t sell there. That’s not the case for UK.
You said they said "it doesn't sell" right or wrong? I can show you your post if you want?Market share = sales.
You aren't providing that evidence even if you clearly think you are.I provided the quote for why they passed it.
It’s not my words.
What do you think the EU is referring?Try reading your own posts, you actually used the word Xbox.
Yes, that’s what they said.You said they said "it doesn't sell" right or wrong? I can show you your post if you want?
It’s an article specifically about why the EU passed it, and they cite lack of market share as the reason.You aren't providing that evidence even if you clearly think you are.
Passing the deal isn't the same as believing that the console market theory of harm isn't likely or an issue.
So you're a liar, no problem.Yes, that’s what they said.
Read the quote again.
As "a" reason, not "the" reason. If you can't parse the difference, I think I will move on.It’s an article specifically about why the EU passed it, and they cite lack of market share as the reason.
It’s not my quote.So you're a liar, no problem.
The CMA passed it as well on that issue with Xbox having a higher market share.It’s an article specifically about why the EU passed it, and they cite lack of market share as the reason.
I never said it was the only reason.As "a" reason, not "the" reason. If you can't parse the difference, I think I will move on.
They’re intertwined, more Xbox = more gamepass = more cloud.The CMA passed it as well on that issue with Xbox having a higher market share.
The issue is the emerging cloud gaming market not console sales.
They’re intertwined, more Xbox = more gamepass = more cloud.
Killed or successful, if Xbox getting Call of Duty means Jim Ryan stops fucking around and gives us "proper" next gen games on PS5 then ... meh I'll take it (mainly because I'm not interested in COD anyway).
If it's not the only reason, then it is not "lack of market share as the reason", it would be "lack of market share as a reason".I never said it was the only reason.
They didn’t need too, they blocked on cloud, which is big because of Xbox.The CMA didn't block on console sales, Cloud gaming doesn't even need a console.
Normal Gamepass doesn't even have cloud gaming, you need Gamepass Ultimate.
Both EC and CMA : we dropped consoles SLC because playstation market share was way biggerThe CMA didn't block on console sales, Cloud gaming doesn't even need a console.
Normal Gamepass doesn't even have cloud gaming, you need Gamepass Ultimate.
There is the possibility that Boosteroid is doing it without the explicit permission of ABK similar to how Nvidia did that when they went from Beta to general release. Unfortunately we probably won't get a clear answer to this unless someone brings it up in court. Would be an interesting
It’s clearly the main difference between EU and UK. Hopefully you can parse that difference.If it's not the only reason, then it is not "lack of market share as the reason", it would be "lack of market share as a reason".
Clearly you can't parse the difference.
I'm not sure why you're being so pedantic but it clearly talks about salesThat doesn't say it "doesn't sell" does it? It talks about market share, come on stop with the misquoting.
This probably needs testing in courts and maybe legislated for. I think ABK with their current ToS could pull it from Boosteroid like they did with GFN. I don't think they should but do think they should have the ability to do so as it currently stands. I hold different companies accountable to different levels based on importance to society.That actually looks worse for microsoft. Combined with the fact they removed their games from geforce now a while back, and now they're making deals which can easily be on another service without a it, i mean what kind of permission do they need from ABK,was ABK aware of it and would it be as restrictive as what microsoft is offering?
The CMA blocked the deal based on the fact that they didn't care for the remedies as they felt left cloud service provider reliant on MS. EC clearly found the remedies sufficient to overcome the issues with the cloud gaming market.It’s clearly the main difference between EU and UK. Hopefully you can parse that difference.
And? Does it say "it doesn't sell"? It's just more overexaggerating that needs to stop. All you've done is prove my point, well done.I'm not sure why you're being so pedantic but it clearly talks about sales
"And for consoles, Sony sells about four times more PlayStations than Microsoft sells Xboxes. With this context, we did not think the merger raised a vertical issue."
Riky , you can laugh or cry. It doesn’t change what they said.
It’s cute you think all that cod profit goes back into game development.Xbox getting COD means we will get even less "proper" next gen games. COD generations a fuck ton of money for Sony every year and taking COD away means having less budget for game development.
he didn't say allIt’s cute you think all that cod profit goes back into game development.
how long until they need a commerical agreement that is so expensive even nvidia passed on it?Don't fall for these companies' bullshit.
Maybe I'm just saying that nobody on here knows what the CAT are going to do, and they've been highly critical of the CMA before.
And did I say different?The CAT has sided with the CMA more than they have ruled against them.
And did I say different?
Master bruce noooAs soon as the likes of you stop their accusations and propaganda - sure.
Boosteroid already has those games, which means whatever agreement ABK was demanding, they got it.how long until they need a commerical agreement that is so expensive even nvidia passed on it?
"Since the service is now available to the public, it appears that Activision Blizzard wanted an official commercial agreement with Nvidia for the inclusion of its titles."
"Per their request, please be advised Activision Blizzard games will be removed from the service. While unfortunate, we hope to work together with Activision Blizzard to reenable these games and more in the future."
![]()
Update: Nvidia Explains Why Activision Games Aren't on GeForce Now - IGN
Activision Blizzard is pulling its games from Nvidia's streaming service, GeForce Now.www.ign.com
But Bethesda releases 1 big RPG every 8 or 9 years and they keep those games exclusive. Why does a game that sells millions on all platforms prove they will keep CoD's annual top selling game on all platforms? It's not like they aren't allowed to leave billions on the table due to some made up duty to shareholders.The precedent of Minecraft is solid evidence it wasn't just PR.
Even the CMA said this would not happen because COD sells too many copies on Sony platforms for MS to pull it. They blocked it based on the hypothetical future of cloud gaming and how MS controlling too many top titles would give them a huge advantage especially when they are the market leader in that space already. Regardless I highly doubt that much, if any money coming in from licensing deals is diverted to internal development. It's likely in a different bin internally at least until it gets time to re-evaluate strategy. I would imagine this type of money is more likely earmarked for pure profit or maybe some goes to expansion via paying other publishers for exclusives.Xbox getting COD means we will get even less "proper" next gen games. COD generations a fuck ton of money for Sony every year and taking COD away means having less budget for game development.
As soon as the likes of you stop their accusations and propaganda - sure.
The precedent of Bethesda is solid evidence it was just PR.The precedent of Minecraft is solid evidence it wasn't just PR.
But Bethesda releases 1 big RPG every 8 or 9 years and they keep those games exclusive. Why does a game that sells millions on all platforms prove they will keep CoD's annual top selling game on all platforms? It's not like they aren't allowed to leave billions on the table due to some made up duty to shareholders.
I need viagra for that. I dont think I can last that long in this state.
The CAT has nothing whatsoever to do with EU, they're a uk entity.The meer fact the EC passed the deal along with many more countries I think it's wise not to second guess what the CAT will do. They've been particularly harsh on the CMA before when mistakes were made.