Support NeoGAF

[Kilau]

FTC should have called their bluff instead of having their hand forced.

MS had one winning move left and that was to remove the illusion of the FTC being a factor and allow maximum pressure on the UK.

Injunction will be denied but MS still doesn’t close to show the CAT how honest and sincere they are. CAT orders CMA to review again and the pressure to accept remedies is too much.

It’s a done deal.

 

[Varteras]

FTC should have called their bluff instead of having their hand forced.

MS had one winning move left and that was to remove the illusion of the FTC being a factor and allow maximum pressure on the UK.

Injunction will be denied but MS still doesn’t close to show the CAT how honest and sincere they are. CAT orders CMA to review again and the pressure to accept remedies is too much.

It’s a done deal.

Both the FTC and EC agree with the CMA over their concerns. The FTC agrees on the remedy but lacks its own power to see it done. That's not a strong ground to prove irrationality. Which is what MS needs to prove. They're going to need a different angle.

 

[Bojanglez]

FTC should have called their bluff instead of having their hand forced.

MS had one winning move left and that was to remove the illusion of the FTC being a factor and allow maximum pressure on the UK.

Injunction will be denied but MS still doesn’t close to show the CAT how honest and sincere they are. CAT orders CMA to review again and the pressure to accept remedies is too much.

It’s a done deal.

On what basis would CAT order CMA to review? And which remedies?

 

[Kilau]

On what basis would CAT order CMA to review? And which remedies?

On the basis that denying remedies everyone else accepted or would was irrational. That sounds as good as whatever other bullshit they would come up with.

 

[Varteras]

On the basis that denying remedies everyone else accepted or would was irrational. That sounds as good as whatever other bullshit they would come up with.

But the FTC does accept their remedies. They came to a similar conclusion on what needed to happen. The process is one where, unfortunately for them, they lack the power to do it without the courts. The courts may deny them, but the FTC is still a major regulatory body that agrees with the CMA in both concerns and remedies. The EC agreeing with their concerns, just not the remedy, is also not a very good ground to prove irrationality. Because it shows that all three were largely on the same page right up until they had to choose how to handle it. One chose behavioral remedies, one chose to block after offering structural remedies that MS denied, and one wants to block but can't on their own. It would be one hell of a struggle to prove that the CMA was irrational and "alone" based on that.

 

[DeepEnigma]

That dude is mentally ill, himself.

 

[ToadMan]

They have a standing order, and sec submitted contract that demands a different outcome.

Yeah but if MS/ABK breaks that contract who is going to bring a case against them?

The ATVI shareholders get paid so it wont’t be them - there’s no case for them to bring.

The anti-trust authorities would - but their case is not about the terms of the acquisition, it’s about the effect of it.

MS shareholders could - they are the ones who’d suffer a loss if MS went ahead and then suffering regulatory penalties. But they probably won’t unless the share price tanked hard and they wanted reparations.

As of today there is no specific legal reason MS can’t fork over the money and complete the acquisition at least in the US because that’s where the shares are held - there hasn’t been since day one.

It’s up to the FTC (or DOJ, but this is being handled by the FTC) to get an injunction up.

Once an injunction is confirmed, then the acquisition becomes specifically illegal in the US - illegal for ATVI shareholders to accept the money and sell the shares, illegal for the exchange to allow the transaction, illegal for MS to try and initiate it.

But I think the FTC has a good chance here of at least getting a temporary injunction.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[bxrz]

Are they more worried about a judge or a jury tho?

The judge decides. There is no jury.

If a judge declines to grant a preliminary injunction requested by the FTC to prevent an acquisition, it does not necessarily mean that the FTC's case is over. A preliminary injunction is a temporary measure intended to maintain the status quo while a case is being litigated. It is granted when a court believes there is a likelihood of success on the merits and that irreparable harm would occur if the injunction is not granted. If a judge declines to grant a preliminary injunction, it means that the court does not find the FTC's arguments convincing enough to warrant an immediate halt to the acquisition. However, the case itself can still proceed, and the FTC can continue its legal efforts to challenge the acquisition through other means.

The judge's decision on a preliminary injunction does not represent a final judgment on the merits of the case. The FTC can still present its evidence, arguments, and pursue further legal avenues to prove its case and seek remedies if it believes the acquisition violates antitrust laws. The judge's ruling on the preliminary injunction is only one aspect of the overall legal process.

It is certainly a type of litmus test for the feelings of the courts prior to the full proceeding that the FTC was going to have to go through anyways. Microsoft was already believed to be willing to close the deal as long as the CMA said yes, seeing as how the FTC was clearly going to drag the case out well beyond the closure date. Not to mention, there was already the general feeling that the courts were going to deny the FTC later. Which has been Khan's crusade this whole time. To show the FTC as toothless and get reforms so that the FTC has similar power in the US to the CMA in the UK, without always having to answer to courts. In processes that are highly political.

As far as how this affects the CMA. It won't either way. The FTC still agrees with the CMA, even if US courts deny them. The difficulty for the FTC to perform its tasks in the US would certainly be highlighted in any attempt to paint the CMA as a loner. In addition to the EC openly sharing the same concerns with the CMA, just being more willing to accept different remedies that the CMA has made clear in the past they find ineffective and very inconvenient. Two important regulatory bodies agree with them. Just that one was willing to deal with behavioral remedies and the other has little of its own power. Not a strong ground to prove irrationality.

I've yet to see an instance where the FTC lost the preliminary injunction but was still able to successfully block an acquisition. Take the FTC vs Meta/Within deal for example. FTC sued to block that deal, lost the court case and then left the acquisition alone

 

[Bernoulli]

anything new since yesterday ftc thing?

 

[Kenshin775]

FTC right now look like Lebron when Kawhi Leonard checks in

 

[Varteras]

The judge decides. There is no jury.

I've yet to see an instance where the FTC lost the preliminary injunction but was still able to successfully block an acquisition. Take the FTC vs Meta/Within deal for example. FTC sued to block that deal, lost the court case and then left the acquisition alone

The FTC was never expected to get court approval anyways. Though they were still going to argue their case. Though it was also anticipated that the CMA would approve after it dropped its console concerns. Then they denied based on cloud concerns.

Considering the respect the CMA has in legal circles, the FTC will likely seize on whatever the CMA looked at and view that as solid support in the courts. Will that be enough? Probably not, since the US system is highly political with both parties pulling strings to screw the other. We already saw just how political when Khan was given brow beatings by Republican congressmen who tried to play the Patriot Game with her to prove she's "anti-American".

The case isn't dead if the injunction gets denied, but the FTC was never really a factor anyways considering how likely it seemed they would lose. The CMA was always the challenge and, for reasons I've already explained, the outcome of this preliminary injunction doesn't change anything for them. The injunction being denied means the situation as it was understood remains the same. The whopper would be if the court agrees to it. THAT does change everything.

 

[Kilau]

But the FTC does accept their remedies. They came to a similar conclusion on what needed to happen. The process is one where, unfortunately for them, they lack the power to do it without the courts. The courts may deny them, but the FTC is still a major regulatory body that agrees with the CMA in both concerns and remedies. The EC agreeing with their concerns, just not the remedy, is also not a very good ground to prove irrationality. Because it shows that all three were largely on the same page right up until they had to choose how to handle it. One chose behavioral remedies, one chose to block after offering structural remedies that MS denied, and one wants to block but can't on their own. It would be one hell of a struggle to prove that the CMA was irrational and "alone" based on that.

Right, MS can argue that remedies have been or would/will be accepted everywhere else in the world. It may not work in the end, but this move allows them to go into the meeting with ABK with something to show when asking for an extension.

From MS view, they were sitting there looking at that deadline with a potentially antsy ABK with a long shot CAT hearing that would still take more time and the FTC stuff dragging it out even further. Forcing the FTC into a failed injunction hearing moves things ahead of the deadline. I think MS is afraid that CMA and FTC bolster each other's positions, but this move potentially eliminates the FTC far earlier.

 

[bxrz]

The FTC was never expected to get court approval anyways. Though they were still going to argue their case. Though it was also anticipated that the CMA would approve after it dropped its console concerns. Then they denied based on cloud concerns.

Considering the respect the CMA has in legal circles, the FTC will likely seize on whatever the CMA looked at and view that as solid support in the courts. Will that be enough? Probably not, since the US system is highly political with both parties pulling strings to screw the other. We already saw just how political when Khan was given brow beatings by Republican congressmen who tried to play the Patriot Game with her to prove she's "anti-American".

The case isn't dead if the injunction gets denied, but the FTC was never really a factor anyways considering how likely it seemed they would lose. The CMA was always the challenge and, for reasons I've already explained, the outcome of this preliminary injunction doesn't change anything for them. The injunction being denied means the situation as it was understood remains the same. The whopper would be if the court agrees to it. THAT does change everything.

FTC isn't playing the cloud angle though, at least not primarily. Their complaint is available and its basically a copy and paste of what they said previously. Its even outdated in many ways. They are mainly playing the "Microsoft is one of the leaders in the high performance console market" angle, an angle that even the CMA dropped

 

[Heisenberg007]

What's new?

 

[jm89]

FTC isn't playing the cloud angle though, at least not primarily. Their complaint is available and its basically a copy and paste of what they said previously. Its even outdated in many ways. They are mainly playing the "Microsoft is one of the leaders in the high performance console market" angle, an angle that even the CMA dropped

They are looking at concerns of all three, console, cloud and subscriptions services. Lina khan mentions this in the below video and even mention nascent markets(cloud).



Folks were doing their monkey dance when CMA dropped console concerns and thought cloud concerns where nothing, but that was enough to get it blocked.

All three concerns matter enough to investigate, as CMA have shown just one of those concerns is enough to block it.

 

[ToadMan]

Right, MS can argue that remedies have been or would/will be accepted everywhere else in the world. It may not work in the end, but this move allows them to go into the meeting with ABK with something to show when asking for an extension.

From MS view, they were sitting there looking at that deadline with a potentially antsy ABK with a long shot CAT hearing that would still take more time and the FTC stuff dragging it out even further. Forcing the FTC into a failed injunction hearing moves things ahead of the deadline. I think MS is afraid that CMA and FTC bolster each other's positions, but this move potentially eliminates the FTC far earlier.

I don’t think its this personally.

I think MS want this done now with the acquisition deal - specifically price - on the table and agreed.

I think they figure that the ABK shareholders (and board of course) would try for more money if they want to extend the acquisition timeframe.

So MS prefer to close now with the price agreed if they can, calculating the cost of getting all this through the regulators is leas than the cost ABK shareholders want to extend the acquisition term.

Bear in mind some speculate the price would jump by $10 per share these days. Personally I’d want more given inflation since the deal was announced and the successful launch of Diablo.

That’s at least a 10% increase in price - $7bn. MS probably feel they can get through the legal shenanigans for around $100 million. Lawyers are expensive but not that expensive.

The risk is whether the regulators can really schwack them for meaningful sums… but I’ll bet MS don’t think they could seriously lose around $7bn by just closing now and running the gauntlet of regulator fines.

 

[X-Wing]

The judge's findings in the Gamers lawsuit.

23-03-20 order on motion to dismiss so-called gamers' lawsuit

www.documentcloud.org

Bonus: Check who contributed the document.

 

[jm89]

The judge's findings in the Gamers lawsuit.

23-03-20 order on motion to dismiss so-called gamers' lawsuit

www.documentcloud.org

Bonus: Check who contributed the document.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[Kilau]

I don’t think its this personally.

I think MS want this done now with the acquisition deal - specifically price - on the table and agreed.

I think they figure that the ABK shareholders (and board of course) would try for more money if they want to extend the acquisition timeframe.

So MS prefer to close now with the price agreed if they can, calculating the cost of getting all this through the regulators is leas than the cost ABK shareholders want to extend the acquisition term.

Bear in mind some speculate the price would jump by $10 per share these days. Personally I’d want more given inflation since the deal was announced and the successful launch of Diablo.

That’s at least a 10% increase in price - $7bn. MS probably feel they can get through the legal shenanigans for around $100 million. Lawyers are expensive but not that expensive.

The risk is whether the regulators can really schwack them for meaningful sums… but I’ll bet MS don’t think they could seriously lose around $7bn by just closing now and running the gauntlet of regulator fines.

I agree they want it over with, but why float out there you will close for the last few weeks? They could have closed already but they leaked it and waited for the FTC to block?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Florian Shiller

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I’m beginning to wonder why MS is prepared to jeopardise everything on an industry which isn’t that lucrative anyway.

Because as I've said before, money has no meaning for MS.

For MS, destroying Sony is a project that is nearly a holy war in terms of its importance to the company. It's a crusade, a jihad, whatever you want to call it. Bill Gates, who is still quite revered inside the company, declared over 20 years ago he wanted to crush Sony because he felt they were a threat to the Windows monopoly by preventing MS from controlling the living room. Since then, Sony has become a major entertainment company and foiled MS's attempts to get into that market, in addition to preventing MS from extending Windows to control the various boxes which display your shit on the TV.

MS is a company which has more money than God. Only the Saudis have more money than MS. They do not care about money. They care about crushing Sony. They have been trying for over two decades, to little effect, because Sony is a Japanese company and out of reach of MS's American corporate bully might and also because quite frankly almost all of what Sony does is highly tangential to anything MS does and they quite literally created Xbox in order to reach Sony in a market they exist in. This is all well documented, there are records of conversations Gates and Steve Ballmer had to this effect.

 

[gothmog]

I agree they want it over with, but why float out there you will close for the last few weeks? They could have closed already but they leaked it and waited for the FTC to block?

Do you really think they were going to be able to secretly close or something?

 

[bxrz]

They are looking at concerns of all three, console, cloud and subscriptions services. Lina khan mentions this in the below video and even mention nascent markets(cloud).



Folks were doing their monkey dance when CMA dropped console concerns and thought cloud concerns where nothing, but that was enough to get it blocked.

All three concerns matter enough to investigate, as CMA have shown just one of those concerns is enough to block it.

Cloud concerns are the easiest to defend in court. Its a lot of "what ifs" because Cloud is irrelevant right now. The CMA went with that because its a lot easier to prove than the console space (which Xbox is in 3rd place in the US) and subscription services (which has slowed down growth in the US). Thats why the CMA is running with the "Microsoft owns 70% of the Cloud space marketshare in gaming" or whatever they said. You can't pull that with consoles or subscriptions cause it wouldn't be true. The judge would throw it out.

 

[Ansphn]

FTC should have called their bluff instead of having their hand forced.

MS had one winning move left and that was to remove the illusion of the FTC being a factor and allow maximum pressure on the UK.

Injunction will be denied but MS still doesn’t close to show the CAT how honest and sincere they are. CAT orders CMA to review again and the pressure to accept remedies is too much.

It’s a done deal.

Florian, is that you?

 

[Kilau]

Do you really think they were going to be able to secretly close or something?

No, I don’t think they were planing to close now but if their intention was to close now they would have just done it quickly.

 

[Banjo64]

Seeing our buddy Robert contributing to that lawsuit.

Brings a tear to my eye.

 

[intheinbetween]

No, I don’t think they were planing to close now but if their intention was to close now they would have just done it quickly.

Well timing seems strangw but MS FY ends next 30th of June, probably just a coincidence but..

 

[Zathalus]

Because as I've said before, money has no meaning for MS.

For MS, destroying Sony is a project that is nearly a holy war in terms of its importance to the company. It's a crusade, a jihad, whatever you want to call it.

It most certainly is not, the primary areas that Microsoft competes in (Azure, OS, Enterprise) has zero bearing from or against Sony. Microsoft can kill the entire Xbox division tomorrow and still remain a trillion dollar company. Trust me, the majority of the people working at Microsoft don't give two shits about Sony. Majority of the focus right now is against Amazon, Google and to a lesser extent Apple. Sony is still a important competitor of course but they are one amongst many.

Bill Gates, who is still quite revered inside the company, declared over 20 years ago he wanted to crush Sony because he felt they were a threat to the Windows monopoly by preventing MS from controlling the living room.

He was also wrong. The biggest threat to home computing is smart devices and phones. Not so much a problem anyways due to the impact of the cloud.

Since then, Sony has become a major entertainment company and foiled MS's attempts to get into that market, in addition to preventing MS from extending Windows to control the various boxes which display your shit on the TV.

Sony has done nothing of the sort, Android, Apple, and Linux control the living room. Which hardly matters as instead of the computing revolution they thought it would be, most people just watch Netflix. Sony's impact on home computing is negligible.

MS is a company which has more money than God. Only the Saudis have more money than MS. They do not care about money. They care about crushing Sony. They have been trying for over two decades, to little effect, because Sony is a Japanese company and out of reach of MS's American corporate bully might and also because quite frankly almost all of what Sony does is highly tangential to anything MS does and they quite literally created Xbox in order to reach Sony in a market they exist in. This is all well documented, there are records of conversations Gates and Steve Ballmer had to this effect.

I'm sorry it's actually 2023 and not 2003. Microsoft compete because gaming is a money maker not because they have to have a holy war to stop Sony.

 

[Kilau]

Florian, is that you?

Bad takes are not exclusive to him.

 

[PaintTinJr]

It most certainly is not, the primary areas that Microsoft competes in (Azure, OS, Enterprise) has zero bearing from or against Sony. Microsoft can kill the entire Xbox division tomorrow and still remain a trillion dollar company. Trust me, the majority of the people working at Microsoft don't give two shits about Sony. Majority of the focus right now is against Amazon, Google and to a lesser extent Apple. Sony is still a important competitor of course but they are one amongst many.



He was also wrong. The biggest threat to home computing is smart devices and phones. Not so much a problem anyways due to the impact of the cloud.



Sony has done nothing of the sort, Android, Apple, and Linux control the living room. Which hardly matters as instead of the computing revolution they thought it would be, most people just watch Netflix. Sony's impact on home computing is negligible.


I'm sorry it's actually 2023 and not 2003. Microsoft compete because gaming is a money maker not because they have to have a holy war to stop Sony.

Your primary assertion is completely false, and joint actor - in DirectX - Nvidia, now nearly a trillion dollar company clearly shows that if Microsoft killed Xbox - and DirectX would die with it - their OS monopoly for PC gaming and PC cloud gaming would be lost with it.

$100b to kill Sony would be considered cheap with largest shareholders (with ~2.25% of MSFT stock, and that still includes Bill, last time I checked)

 

[Dick Jones]

So that's what he's been doing since he was banned here. Between shilling and doxing I didn't think he had the time.

 

[Zathalus]

Your primary assertion is completely false, and joint actor - in DirectX - Nvidia, now nearly a trillion dollar company clearly shows that if Microsoft killed Xbox - and DirectX would die with it - their OS monopoly for PC gaming and PC cloud gaming would be lost with it.

$100b to kill Sony would be considered cheap with largest shareholders (with ~2.25% of MSFT stock, and that still includes Bill, last time I checked)

Killing Xbox does not mean killing DirectX (not that they would kill Xbox, it was hypothetical).

Nvidia being a trillion dollar company has got absolutely nothing to do with gaming.

 

[The Pleasure]

Which one of you is this?

Is the floor ascending to Super Tarded status?

 

[ToadMan]

I agree they want it over with, but why float out there you will close for the last few weeks? They could have closed already but they leaked it and waited for the FTC to block?

Balance of risks vs reward.

Right now they can close and risk a hundred million in court fees vs negotiate extension and pay $7bn+ and maybe still have to do the court stuff.

I don’t think they were trying to sucker the FTC - I think they really want to close now.

If the FTC injunction fails, I think they go ahead and close.

 

[Dick Jones]

Which one of you is this?

If you read it while listening to inspirational music, it could be Sarah Bond

 

[Topher]

Which one of you is this?

That's gotta be DeepEnigma or GHG .

 

[DarkBatman]

Balance of risks vs reward.

Right now they can close and risk a hundred million in court fees vs negotiate extension and pay $7bn+ and maybe still have to do the court stuff.

I don’t think they were trying to sucker the FTC - I think they really want to close now.

If the FTC injunction fails, I think they go ahead and close.

I thought it was impossible to close the deal because CMA approval was one of the main conditions.
Or would the failure of the injuction somehow induce the CMA to change its own decision before the scheduled hearing dates?

 

[Topher]

I thought it was impossible to close the deal because CMA approval was one of the main conditions.
Or would the failure of the injuction somehow induce the CMA to change its own decision before the scheduled hearing dates?

Not impossible, illegal though. Personally I think Microsoft is bluffing. Breaking the law isn't the way to get regulatory approval, unless this is a Hail Mary.

 

[FireFly]

Your primary assertion is completely false, and joint actor - in DirectX - Nvidia, now nearly a trillion dollar company clearly shows that if Microsoft killed Xbox - and DirectX would die with it - their OS monopoly for PC gaming and PC cloud gaming would be lost with it.

$100b to kill Sony would be considered cheap with largest shareholders (with ~2.25% of MSFT stock, and that still includes Bill, last time I checked)

So without Xbox, which OS are PC gamers going to play games on?

 

[Bernoulli]

that dude is crazy check his account it's actually crazy what he writes

 

[Bernoulli]

So without Xbox, which OS are PC gamers going to play games on?

xbox is an OS?

no one uses the microsoft store to play

 

[FireFly]

xbox is an OS?

no one uses the microsoft store to play

I'm not the one claiming Microsoft's "OS monopoly for PC gaming and PC cloud gaming" depends on Xbox existing.

 

[reksveks]

Would be fun to see the FTC argue that MGS is a seperate market than B2P in court.

Other than that, slow news day?

 

[bitbydeath]

For heaven’s sake man, I’m not whitewashing anything. Lord there are some sensitive souls on this thread.

I’m not talking about puff pieces on websites. Rather this strange paranoia that has taken over this thread where anyone person that puts forward an alternative opinion is immediately tarred as an astroturfer or bot. This has truly turned into the weirdest echo chamber where the same six or seven people post over and over again, almost as if they’re convincing themselves of the outcome.

For what it’s worth, I’ve agreed with many of your points. I’ve always said that I expect some version of the deal to go through, simply because these companies invariably get their way. I’m also not fully convinced on the cloud point with the CMA - or, rather, I think it’s something that MS will be able to navigate.

I’m also not expecting as much from the FTC, as they have a higher standard to meet.

What’s always surprised me about this case is the focus on cloud, when there were very significant competition points that could have been raised about the status of ABK to the industry. That’s where I think it should have been challenged.

Was this a long winded way of admitting you were wrong?

 

[PaintTinJr]

So without Xbox, which OS are PC gamers going to play games on?

Well all the other ones that exist, too, as well as Windows obviously. It current has over 95% of the PC gaming market share, and Windows is used by all the people Microsoft offered 10year deals to in the cloud space.

The API requirement by Xbox makes DirectX the first port of call graphics API on Windows, that leads to that type of market share.

People still using WIndows but using other APIs like Opengl or Vulkan instead - because they better align with Mac/Linux/Android and PlayStation development, would be a subtle difference but - would be a big power shift and loss of their monopoly power over OSes for gaming, even if the perceived +70% market share for Windows continued absent DirectX.

Just rolling back the market setup before DirectX became the replacement for 3dfx Glide - when Microsoft loaned Nvidia $500M to litigate 3dfx out of business and still contractually have a first right to buy Nvidia, should Nvidia ever wish to be acquired - would never have resulted in Stadia being able to make the foreclosure claims against Microsoft.

Before the death of 3dfx and relaunch of DirectX with Xbox/Nvidia. Opengl and 3DFX were the primary gaming APIs on Windows and Microsoft had far less power for it, with PlayStation and Nintendo being the home of graphics software innovation,

 

[PaintTinJr]

Killing Xbox does not mean killing DirectX (not that they would kill Xbox, it was hypothetical).

Nvidia being a trillion dollar company has got absolutely nothing to do with gaming.

It would kill DirectX, because it would be a an API - adding work for developers - with no benefit in comparison to Vulkan and Opengl, which are platform agnostic and have stronger ties with MacOS, Android, Linux and most importantly better align with Nintendo and PlayStation - with its cutting edge game development graphics techniques - and would reduce API support for Epic with Unreal into the bargain.

 

[FireFly]

Well all the other ones that exist, too, as well as Windows obviously. It current has over 95% of the PC gaming market share, and Windows is used by all the people Microsoft offered 10year deals to in the cloud space.

The API requirement by Xbox makes DirectX the first port of call graphics API on Windows, that leads to that type of market share.

People still using WIndows but using other APIs like Opengl or Vulkan instead - because they better align with Mac/Linux/Android and PlayStation development, would be a subtle difference but - would be a big power shift and loss of their monopoly power over OSes for gaming, even if the perceived +70% market share for Windows continued absent DirectX.

Just rolling back the market setup before DirectX became the replacement for 3dfx Glide - when Microsoft loaned Nvidia $500M to litigate 3dfx out of business and still contractually have a first right to buy Nvidia, should Nvidia ever wish to be acquired - would never have resulted in Stadia being able to make the foreclosure claims against Microsoft.

Before the death of 3dfx and relaunch of DirectX with Xbox/Nvidia. Opengl and 3DFX were the primary gaming APIs on Windows and Microsoft had far less power for it, with PlayStation and Nintendo being the home of graphics software innovation,

AFAIK all of the recent Playstation ports are using DirectX, despite there being "no benefit" in your words.

But even if developers switch over to open APIs, the vast majority of the audience will be on Windows, so there will be a very strong incentive to ignore other OS, especially given the already limited resources allocated to PC porting.

 

[Banjo64]

Most sane DarkMage619 post