-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
PaintTinJr
Member
Even though Cloud would work for me fine, and did even all the way back to me trying Gaikai(? in 2009?) because I have a good connection and excellent routing hardware; unless he is testing on less than Xbox one hardware(like a ChromeBook), it isn't a good experience substitute and completely defeats the purpose, and when you check the so called(thin client) potato hardware needed for GeforceNow, etc, it turns out it isn't quite a potato and they are all desktop PC requirements.
/tldr
It means nothing without stating how pathetic his thin client hardware is.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
This is GeForce now.
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
I seem to remember the devs saying that they were using it at the time. Doom 2016 had a native Linux version that was confirmed to be using Vulkan and in articles around the Stadia launch id talked of initially porting that to Stadia before then porting Eternal and it implies it was still using Vulkan:Apparently Stadia was using a variety of translation techniques:
Yes. Windows games on Stadia are in Play!
The Stadia team confirmed that Google and developer partners have been using various known techniques to get Windows games running on Stadia.clouddosage.com
So it's not clear what was being used for id engine games. Also I don't think id has confirmed they are abandoning Vulkan?
Source: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019...-to-overcome-ids-stadia-streaming-skepticism/
There was a big push at the time around the launch of Stadia to get devs using Vulkan for easier interoperability around nascent (sorry had to use that work) platforms.
Maybe it's a stretch, but it could be there was an alternative path where Bethesda were not bought by Microsoft and their catalogue came to all cloud platforms (proper platforms not just Windows VMs) and developer mindshare began to edge towards Vulkan and even native Linux (with the launch of Steam Deck). To what extent the MS purchase changed the course of history we will never know, but allowing them to ringfence another 10% of developers, cut of supply of their games and suppress demand for alternative tools and platforms (in favour of their proprietary ones) is probably part of their motivation. I would love it if a suggested remedy by a regulator was that they had to make their games available to alternative platforms using open standards and platforms in perpetuity, but it's not going to happen.
PharaoTutAnchAmun
Member
O, i will bite...I think that the deal will not happen, but i'am the only one? Thats for you to figger out
PaintTinJr
Member
I don't think you are understanding my point.
You have a cloud service, and you still need a client device. The purpose of Cloud gaming is to provide all thin client hardware(smartphone, Chromebook, Raspberry Pi 400, old Intel Core i3 mobile laptop) to connect and give a experience like a desktop PC with a RTX 4080.
If you need Windows 10 64bit, and by extension a modern laptop/ultrabook with 2.4Ghz CPU, 4GB of Ram and a modern graphics card capability (Opengl 3.2/DX12) to get a good experience, it is hardly the simple thin client VNC experience it should be, with just the ability to draw pixels, input controller commands, DAC audio, and send/receive network data, is it?
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
???
All you are doing is streaming that is all. Whether it's from native app, TV or browser.
PaintTinJr
Member
So why are the requirements for the service so high for the client?
AFAIK a Raspberry Pi 400 computer is nowhere close to the requirements for a client, and it is a fully supported modern computer with very, very weak hardware for native gaming (Quake3 480p @ 30-60fps is what I got IIRC, so about a Pentium 120Mhz with 16MB of RAM and Voodoo2) and should easily be a highly capable thin client.
Last edited:
Scheduled for the 28th July
feynoob
Banned
I still don't get your point.
This is a product for your average consumers.
Astray
Member
This is the 1st actual CAT hearing?
Scheduled for the 28th July
PaintTinJr
Member
The point is that Cloud gaming is a misnomer, if all the client devices are thick clients in reality, and with John's testing, he will get very different experiences from Cloud gaming latency with a PS Vita( on a PS3, than a high-end PC with GefroceNow. The former being just enough hardware to do the job at all, and the latter being the sledge hammer to crack a nut, and pointless result if the client hardware could have ran the game natively.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
Not really.
Zathalus
Member
It's not high, AV1 can be done on a Intel CPU newer then 11th gen. A Ultrabook, a Mac, or a Nvidia Shield gets the job done for 4k streaming. Devices like the Steamdeck and Smart TVs can do the job as well.
Obviously if you want 120FPS or HDR you would need a TV or monitor that can support that.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Oh, just a 4080, eh? Is that all?
Kilau
Member
It works on phones, I’ve never tried it on my phone but it does work well on the lowly Shield.
feynoob
Banned
Yeah. The latest tier gives you that option.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
If I understood what you mean, yep.
Sanepar
Member
How they can close the deal before cat hearing?
feynoob
Banned
Corporations don't care about laws.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And they've been broken up or forced to sell for it in the past.
I still think it's posturing with their lemmings and shills to repeat.
What the hell are you on about????? Another post from someone without a clue, your like John he's been shitting on streaming for years and now he tries the one people have been saying is good he magically has a change in stance. Don't even need a god damn pc.....
System Requirements for GeForce NOW Cloud Gaming
Optimize your rig for the best gaming experience.
www.nvidia.com
If that comment is because you think he needs that in the local device you are confused, That's the hardware in the cloud the game is running on.
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
The difference is that people in the past gave a shit about their work. People in office these days don't really care anything other than $$$.
EU passed this deal, even though they highlighted the potential risk.
As long as you invest in them, they will turn a blind eye.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
The CMA literally forced Facebook to sell of Giphy. We know the EU is all about levie$ at the expense of the consumers and industries. They've been fucking over farmers, etc., for decades.
feynoob
Banned
The thing is Giphy is not the same as cod Activision. MS isn't going to back down that easily.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
So it all comes down to Microsoft's and Activision's willingness (and ability) to renegotiate before July 18.
If they manage to renegotiate, then it drags on further. Otherwise, the deal is off.
Sanepar
Member
Nope read again. They can close and ignore CMA.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
You're right, this is bigger. If laws aren't followed, this will set a precedent and all the ammunition the FTC and courts need to break up MS. They're posturing.
It was tongue in cheek.
Last edited:
They really can't without serious consequences for their business and for their reputation and relationships with regulators.
They will start a war of fines and long term legal issues.
Also closing without CMA isn't what was agreed between the parts in the contract.
They would be violating their own terms.
Right now the closing is also illegal in the US.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They'd also be operating illegally within the UK.
Sorry, it looked like a post thinking you needed a 4080 to use geforce now to get the results in the tweet.
Topher
Identifies as young
If that were the case then why bother with getting CMA approval in the first place? Makes no sense.
Bernoulli
M2 slut
I want them to close it, then getting ordered by the CMA to sell it at loss + fined
That means huge fines, 70 billions wasted , sell at half price
If possible of course
Facebook owner Meta sells Giphy and takes plus $260M loss after UK antitrust order
Facebook parent Meta will sell Giphy Inc. to Shutterstock for $53 million, well below the $400 million it paid for the platform in 2020 after U.K. regulators blocked the acquisition.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And why not close yesterday?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
They can't. Tim Warren knows shit.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
feynoob
Banned
We will love it if they do it.It's just MS using their media puppets. Close already if you can just do it.
The war is going to be epic.
splattered
Member
Uh huh so you think MS is going to recklessly risk being forced to break up as a company? Like completely dissolve or something? No way in hell courts are going to come out here and force the makers of the primary PC operating system the entire world uses to just break up and go away, sorry that is delusional wishful thinking for some. MS wouldn't be doing what they are right now unless they stood a very good chance of winning, with at least some sort of safe retreat path (minus 3 billion dollars possibly). For some on the outside it looks like "OMG Microsoft is so stupid!" when internally they probably have a very clear and solid path they are following as far as they can before they are forced to stand back and/or stop. Clearly they aren't at that point yet for whatever reason.
feynoob
Banned
They almost did it in 1990s.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
No, hence why they aren't closing or have not closed yet and are seeking the legal route.
And no again, I was talking about forced to divest and sell off ABK. Like the CMA has done so in the past with other companies.
splattered
Member
I want them to close it, then getting ordered by the CMA to sell it at loss + fined
That means huge fines, 70 billions wasted , sell at half price
If possible of course
Facebook owner Meta sells Giphy and takes plus $260M loss after UK antitrust order
Facebook parent Meta will sell Giphy Inc. to Shutterstock for $53 million, well below the $400 million it paid for the platform in 2020 after U.K. regulators blocked the acquisition.finance.yahoo.com
Why would you want that? In hopes that MS have to shut down their gaming division? Yeah that'll teach them to fuck with your blue box! Sorry but wishing an outcome that severe to a company is just crazy. MS, Sony, or anyone. Neither Sony or MS are "bad guys" here, you've very clearly made Microsoft the villain in this case which is just silly. Microsoft wanted to buy Activision, Activision eventually said yes, Sony said HELP!, and now we're just waiting for this to all play out. It really is that simple.
splattered
Member
No, hence why they aren't closing or have not closed yet and are seeking the legal route.
And no again, I was talking about forced to divest and sell off ABK. Like the CMA has done so in the past with other companies.
Oh ok you keep saying they will be forced to break up which makes it sound like MS as a company haha i was like wtf is this person talking about?
Was it part of the strategy to force the FTC while not creating extra harm before the Court??
Squeeze all options before the most drastic option while time permits?(3 Billion per agreement break)
In any case, whatever the reason, what is clear is that the FTC has believed it possible that MS could take the step contrary to what people here thought. If it is nosense think that MS will be able to close the deal without UK approval, will we also recognize that the FTC's action is nonsense?
Personally, there has come a time when what no longer makes sense is to predict what may happen. Fortunately the deadlines have accelerated and, now, the resolution is close.
Topher
Identifies as young
The FTC is nothing more than a speedbump in all this. They have no chance of preventing this acquisition (based on their track record). The point I was making is that if Microsoft can simply "ignore the CMA" then they never needed to submit this acquisition for CMA approval at all much less put so much effort into hiring high profile lawyers to submit an appeal to the CAT. Microsoft is doing the exact opposite of "ignoring" the CMA.
Last edited:
splattered
Member
True but they also seem very confident in the outcome - at least from an outside perspective right now. Maybe just bluffin though, who knows? I don't think they would be publicly happy to accelerate the process like this unless they had some sort of internal plan/roadmap that was playing out as they want it to.
Last edited:
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
Whereas wishing a company gets their own way by threatening to remove jobs and and weaken the national security of a country is totally fine
MS aren't exactly coming off as good guys are they.
splattered
Member
Whereas wishing a company gets their own way by threatening to remove jobs and and weaken the national security of a country is totally fine
It's just posturing... did they actually do any of that? Sony said they would crumble and die if COD became an Xbox exclusive which is a huge slap in the face to their own development teams and fans, do you believe them? Companies out here just being dramatic. It's up to the regulators to call bluffs and they have.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They were very confident the deal would close without any issues at one time. This is par for the course.
They have to talk the good talk, $3b is on the line if they sabotage that.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked