-
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
bobbyphunk
Member
I just did a quick Google search and it looks like June 22-23 will be the next big court date
Iced Arcade
Member
T2 would absolutely be blocked/investigated the same as ABK with GTA being the focus like COD is.
EA wouldn't be worth it because the bulk of EA's income comes from sports franchises that come with multiplatform license agreements. (Unless you want to wanted to keep them running 3rd party).
EA wouldn't be worth it because the bulk of EA's income comes from sports franchises that come with multiplatform license agreements. (Unless you want to wanted to keep them running 3rd party).
feynoob
Banned
Not really. GTA is not the same as COD.
The reason COD is big is the yearly releases and MTX it brings. You have 20m people buy the game every year. That is more 1b sales yearly from copy sold, not counting mtx sales.
Iced Arcade
Member
Unknown Soldier
Member
The fact that the MLB basically forced Sony to become a 3rd party dev for Xbox and Switch just to keep their MLB The Show license is proof that EA would be a terrible acquisition target. The NFL wouldn't let anyone take Madden exclusive either, and the same applies for The Franchise Formerly Known As FIFA because of the labyrinth of licensing that surrounds world pro soccer.
As an aside: I have a great deal of respect for Sony as a 3rd party dev, MLB The Show 23 on Switch looks and runs surprisingly well. They are a better 3rd party dev than actual 3rd party devs.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It's like, when one goes down, a new contender enters the ring.Was this a saved post from 500 pages ago or something?
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
I'm not a dick, you just have no idea what you're talking about, and it's clear as day.
The idea that a merger worth nearly 70 billion dollars would have a definitive impact on deals that would be worth less than half of that... It reflects that you just don't understand the gaming market or regulatory bodies or history.
I'd love to see some of your historic evidence to back up your entirely made-up assumptions of how regulatory bodies see future M&A and how companies react accordingly.
Regulatory bodies don't care about Red Dead Redemption or even Grand Theft Auto, they barely care about Call of Duty. They care that ABK deal is worth 70 billion dollars and that it's the largest 3rd party publisher in a growing entertainment segment. They care about the relative size of Microsoft compared to Sony and the impact that Microsoft's deep pockets could have on the industry. No one bat an eye over Zenimax and no one would bat an eye with EA or T2. Much of their profits come from annual sports game revenue that would never be able to become exclusive because the leagues would not allow the foreclosure and the impact on revenue.
Gaming is still an infant in terms of overall entertainment revenue, but regulators know it is growing into a bigger business, but almost all regulators allowed this deal and they would certainly allow the smaller ones (significantly smaller companies). There was never any question of that.
Somehow gamers have convinced themselves that T2 and EA are in the same category as ABK, but the reality is they're not even close.
No one cares who buys mint mobile. T-Mobile and sprint were allowed to merge but ATT wasn't allowed to buy T-Mobile, even though the Tmobile Sprint deal made them the 2nd largest telecom in the US.
tryDEATH
Member
Did the FTC really claim that PC's and Nintendo are not in the same market as PS and Xbox as it is written in the opposition motion on Page 9?
I don't see how the FTC wins this one, they are trying to split imaginary hairs to make this a purely MS vs. Sony thing, which it isn't. CoD is staying on PS and its coming to more systems, it a win for gaming as a whole in that aspect.
As for Cloud no one brought that up as a big issue until the CMA did and I didn't hear or read Sony complain about that. It feels like too big of a "What if" argument from the FTC and CMA on cloud gaming and to a point seem too certain that cloud gaming is going to be a thing and that MS will dominate it when in reality it wouldn't be the first time they failed to capitalize as being at the forefront of a industry before falling off.
I don't see how the FTC wins this one, they are trying to split imaginary hairs to make this a purely MS vs. Sony thing, which it isn't. CoD is staying on PS and its coming to more systems, it a win for gaming as a whole in that aspect.
As for Cloud no one brought that up as a big issue until the CMA did and I didn't hear or read Sony complain about that. It feels like too big of a "What if" argument from the FTC and CMA on cloud gaming and to a point seem too certain that cloud gaming is going to be a thing and that MS will dominate it when in reality it wouldn't be the first time they failed to capitalize as being at the forefront of a industry before falling off.
Varteras
Member
Q: If Microsoft were to be denied the acquisition of Activision because of concerns on how that would impact the video game console space, and Activision was bigger than Electronic Arts or Take Two, would that be valuable information to their competitor Sony, for how a situation involving Microsoft trying to buy Electronic Arts or Take Two would go after being denied Activision? Perhaps in a situation where Sony would wonder what the likelihood of Microsoft buying both Electronic Arts and Take Two would be?
A: As an AI language model, I can provide some analysis based on the information available up until September 2021. However, I don't have access to current events or specific insider knowledge. Given that the knowledge cutoff is in September 2021, I cannot provide information on any recent developments or events regarding Microsoft, Activision, Sony, Electronic Arts, or Take-Two Interactive.
That being said, in a hypothetical scenario where Microsoft's acquisition of Activision is denied due to concerns about its impact on the video game console space, it could indeed provide valuable information to Sony or any other competitor looking to assess the likelihood of a potential Microsoft acquisition of Electronic Arts or Take-Two Interactive.
Such a denial might indicate that regulatory bodies or industry stakeholders have raised concerns about consolidation and market dominance in the video game industry. If Sony were considering a similar acquisition by Microsoft, it could suggest that they might face similar regulatory scrutiny and potential opposition. This information might influence Sony's decision-making process and their assessment of the likelihood of a successful acquisition.
However, it's important to note that the decision-making processes of companies can vary, and other factors beyond just the denial of a specific acquisition can come into play. The strategic goals, financial considerations, and competitive landscape can all influence a company's approach to mergers and acquisitions.
As the gaming industry is constantly evolving, it's always best to consult the latest news and official sources for the most accurate and up-to-date information on any specific acquisitions or developments in the market.
Q: Would the denial of Microsoft's acquisition of Activision likely provide Sony a better idea of the landscape as regulators see it rather than them allowing the acquisition? Especially as Activision is the largest third-party video game company.
A: In a hypothetical scenario where Microsoft's acquisition of Activision is denied due to regulatory concerns, it could indeed provide Sony with insights into how regulators perceive consolidation and market dominance in the video game industry. Regulators generally evaluate mergers and acquisitions to ensure fair competition, prevent monopolies, and safeguard consumer interests.
If regulators were to deny the acquisition of Activision, it might indicate that they have reservations about allowing such a significant consolidation in the industry. This denial could suggest that regulators view the combination of Microsoft and Activision as potentially detrimental to competition, market dynamics, or consumer choice.
As Activision is one of the largest third-party video game companies, its acquisition by Microsoft would likely have a substantial impact on the industry landscape. Regulators may be particularly concerned about the potential market concentration, exclusivity arrangements, or other anti-competitive practices that could arise from such a merger.
If Sony were considering a similar acquisition, the denial of Microsoft's acquisition of Activision could serve as a valuable reference point for Sony to anticipate regulatory scrutiny and assess the potential risks involved. Sony might have a better understanding of the regulatory landscape, potential challenges, and the need to address any concerns that regulators might have regarding market concentration or anti-competitive behavior.
However, it's important to note that each merger or acquisition is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and regulatory decisions can vary depending on the specific circumstances, industry dynamics, and the jurisdiction in which the review takes place. Therefore, while the denial of one acquisition can provide some insights, it does not guarantee the outcome of a different acquisition attempt.
Q: Let me go further. If Microsoft were denied the purchase of Activision, would that give Sony a better idea on how Microsoft buying Electronic Arts and Take Two would go, rather than if regulators allowed the purchase of Activision? Would approval make for more unknowns than denial?
A: If Microsoft were denied the purchase of Activision, it could potentially provide Sony with some insights and help them understand the regulatory landscape and concerns surrounding consolidation in the video game industry. Denial of the Activision acquisition might indicate that regulators have reservations about significant consolidation and market dominance.
In this scenario, Sony could infer that a potential acquisition of Electronic Arts and Take-Two Interactive by Microsoft might also face similar regulatory scrutiny. It could suggest that regulators may have concerns about market concentration, anti-competitive practices, or other potential negative impacts on competition and consumer choice.
On the other hand, if regulators were to approve the purchase of Activision, it wouldn't necessarily mean that a potential Microsoft acquisition of Electronic Arts and Take-Two Interactive would automatically be approved without any issues. Each merger or acquisition is evaluated on its own merits, and regulatory decisions can vary depending on various factors.
Approval of the Activision acquisition might not necessarily provide Sony with a clear indication of how regulators would view a potential Microsoft acquisition of Electronic Arts and Take-Two Interactive. The regulatory landscape is complex and subject to change, and regulators consider multiple factors and conduct independent assessments for each proposed transaction.
While the denial of an acquisition can provide some insights and potential regulatory concerns, it does not guarantee the outcome or decision for a different acquisition attempt. It is always best for companies to consult with legal and regulatory experts and engage in due diligence when considering any mergers or acquisitions in order to understand the specific regulatory considerations that may arise.
Q: But would denial give Sony an overall better picture of regulator thinking towards Microsoft's limitation than approval?
A: Yes, the denial of Microsoft's acquisition of Activision could potentially provide Sony with a better picture of regulator thinking and concerns regarding Microsoft's ambitions in the video game industry.
If regulators were to deny the acquisition, it would indicate that they have specific concerns about consolidation, market dominance, or anti-competitive practices that they believe would arise from the merger. This denial would offer Sony valuable insights into the specific issues that regulators find problematic in such acquisitions.
By studying the reasons for the denial, Sony can gain a deeper understanding of how regulators perceive market dynamics, competition, and potential negative impacts on consumer welfare. This information can help Sony assess the likelihood of regulatory approval and anticipate the potential challenges they might face if they were to pursue a similar acquisition.
In contrast, if regulators were to approve the acquisition, Sony would have fewer direct indicators of potential regulatory concerns. Although it could still analyze the conditions and requirements imposed on the approved acquisition to glean some insights, the overall regulatory stance may be less clear.
Ultimately, while the denial of an acquisition can provide Sony with more tangible information about regulatory thinking, it is essential to recognize that regulatory decisions are context-specific, and each acquisition is evaluated on its own merits. Sony would still need to engage in thorough due diligence and consult with legal and regulatory experts to understand the specific considerations and potential regulatory hurdles that may arise in any acquisition attempt.
That being said, in a hypothetical scenario where Microsoft's acquisition of Activision is denied due to concerns about its impact on the video game console space, it could indeed provide valuable information to Sony or any other competitor looking to assess the likelihood of a potential Microsoft acquisition of Electronic Arts or Take-Two Interactive.
Such a denial might indicate that regulatory bodies or industry stakeholders have raised concerns about consolidation and market dominance in the video game industry. If Sony were considering a similar acquisition by Microsoft, it could suggest that they might face similar regulatory scrutiny and potential opposition. This information might influence Sony's decision-making process and their assessment of the likelihood of a successful acquisition.
However, it's important to note that the decision-making processes of companies can vary, and other factors beyond just the denial of a specific acquisition can come into play. The strategic goals, financial considerations, and competitive landscape can all influence a company's approach to mergers and acquisitions.
As the gaming industry is constantly evolving, it's always best to consult the latest news and official sources for the most accurate and up-to-date information on any specific acquisitions or developments in the market.
Q: Would the denial of Microsoft's acquisition of Activision likely provide Sony a better idea of the landscape as regulators see it rather than them allowing the acquisition? Especially as Activision is the largest third-party video game company.
A: In a hypothetical scenario where Microsoft's acquisition of Activision is denied due to regulatory concerns, it could indeed provide Sony with insights into how regulators perceive consolidation and market dominance in the video game industry. Regulators generally evaluate mergers and acquisitions to ensure fair competition, prevent monopolies, and safeguard consumer interests.
If regulators were to deny the acquisition of Activision, it might indicate that they have reservations about allowing such a significant consolidation in the industry. This denial could suggest that regulators view the combination of Microsoft and Activision as potentially detrimental to competition, market dynamics, or consumer choice.
As Activision is one of the largest third-party video game companies, its acquisition by Microsoft would likely have a substantial impact on the industry landscape. Regulators may be particularly concerned about the potential market concentration, exclusivity arrangements, or other anti-competitive practices that could arise from such a merger.
If Sony were considering a similar acquisition, the denial of Microsoft's acquisition of Activision could serve as a valuable reference point for Sony to anticipate regulatory scrutiny and assess the potential risks involved. Sony might have a better understanding of the regulatory landscape, potential challenges, and the need to address any concerns that regulators might have regarding market concentration or anti-competitive behavior.
However, it's important to note that each merger or acquisition is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and regulatory decisions can vary depending on the specific circumstances, industry dynamics, and the jurisdiction in which the review takes place. Therefore, while the denial of one acquisition can provide some insights, it does not guarantee the outcome of a different acquisition attempt.
Q: Let me go further. If Microsoft were denied the purchase of Activision, would that give Sony a better idea on how Microsoft buying Electronic Arts and Take Two would go, rather than if regulators allowed the purchase of Activision? Would approval make for more unknowns than denial?
A: If Microsoft were denied the purchase of Activision, it could potentially provide Sony with some insights and help them understand the regulatory landscape and concerns surrounding consolidation in the video game industry. Denial of the Activision acquisition might indicate that regulators have reservations about significant consolidation and market dominance.
In this scenario, Sony could infer that a potential acquisition of Electronic Arts and Take-Two Interactive by Microsoft might also face similar regulatory scrutiny. It could suggest that regulators may have concerns about market concentration, anti-competitive practices, or other potential negative impacts on competition and consumer choice.
On the other hand, if regulators were to approve the purchase of Activision, it wouldn't necessarily mean that a potential Microsoft acquisition of Electronic Arts and Take-Two Interactive would automatically be approved without any issues. Each merger or acquisition is evaluated on its own merits, and regulatory decisions can vary depending on various factors.
Approval of the Activision acquisition might not necessarily provide Sony with a clear indication of how regulators would view a potential Microsoft acquisition of Electronic Arts and Take-Two Interactive. The regulatory landscape is complex and subject to change, and regulators consider multiple factors and conduct independent assessments for each proposed transaction.
While the denial of an acquisition can provide some insights and potential regulatory concerns, it does not guarantee the outcome or decision for a different acquisition attempt. It is always best for companies to consult with legal and regulatory experts and engage in due diligence when considering any mergers or acquisitions in order to understand the specific regulatory considerations that may arise.
Q: But would denial give Sony an overall better picture of regulator thinking towards Microsoft's limitation than approval?
A: Yes, the denial of Microsoft's acquisition of Activision could potentially provide Sony with a better picture of regulator thinking and concerns regarding Microsoft's ambitions in the video game industry.
If regulators were to deny the acquisition, it would indicate that they have specific concerns about consolidation, market dominance, or anti-competitive practices that they believe would arise from the merger. This denial would offer Sony valuable insights into the specific issues that regulators find problematic in such acquisitions.
By studying the reasons for the denial, Sony can gain a deeper understanding of how regulators perceive market dynamics, competition, and potential negative impacts on consumer welfare. This information can help Sony assess the likelihood of regulatory approval and anticipate the potential challenges they might face if they were to pursue a similar acquisition.
In contrast, if regulators were to approve the acquisition, Sony would have fewer direct indicators of potential regulatory concerns. Although it could still analyze the conditions and requirements imposed on the approved acquisition to glean some insights, the overall regulatory stance may be less clear.
Ultimately, while the denial of an acquisition can provide Sony with more tangible information about regulatory thinking, it is essential to recognize that regulatory decisions are context-specific, and each acquisition is evaluated on its own merits. Sony would still need to engage in thorough due diligence and consult with legal and regulatory experts to understand the specific considerations and potential regulatory hurdles that may arise in any acquisition attempt.
Iced Arcade
Member
Last edited:
feynoob
Banned
False. They don't care none of that crap shit. Disney is clear example of that.
The only reason why CMA and FTC are blocking this deal, is because MS is a giant tech company. That is all.
CMA used the effect way to kill it, which was the cloud. The fact that they didn't kill the deal on merit of console SLC should tell you their decision.
But the most factor of block come from MS desire not to share those revenues and making half assed remedies. Had MS being smart about that, CMA would have likelihood approved this deal.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
This ABK deal would have been by far the largest deal in the history of gaming, nearly 10 fold the zenimax deal. You compare that to say the T2 Zynga deal which was truly more of a merger with much of the deal coming via stock swap and it was obvious that regulators would take a strong look at this deal with the odds of them blocking it being high.
You look at Disney's competitors even after the Fox deal, and you can see that they don't really have outsized leverage like Microsoft does.
Disney has a market cap of 166 billion. Who are Disney's biggest competitors? Universal/Comcast, Netflix, Amazon, Sony, Discovery Warner, and Paramount.
Universal/Comcast - 171 billion
Netflix - 192 billion
Amazon - 1.29 trillion
Sony - 123 billion
Discovery Warner - 31 billion
Paramount - 10 billion
So you look at Paramount and Discovery and they're obviously entirely too small to compete.
They'll be bought out within 10 years and regulators won't stop it as long as there is a general balance in the market.
Microsoft buying the biggest 3rd party publisher with their deep pockets was always going to make regulators think twice, especially with their history and their tentacles.
Sony could buy Discovery Warner, Paramount Pictures, and T2 and regulators probably wouldn't bat an eye even with total sum of those being larger than ABK.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
The high-end console market has always been largely separate from PC gaming and Nintendo has left that market since the Gamecube... The Wii was released in 2006, almost two decades ago and Nintendo's absence from this market since the N64 has had little to no impact on gaming.
It's like saying we should compare the Honda Accord to the Tesla Model S just because they are both cars.
Cloud has always been a concern since this deal was announced. Everyone knows that cloud could very well be the future of gaming. We've talked about it at length here on this forum. If they're able to solve for latency, it allows you to without hardware (that you take a loss on) get gaming into almost any home and on almost any device... That's huge for gaming and technology changes rapidly.
The first iphone came out after the Wii and in that time span has completely altered day to day life across the planet. The next two years will be unmistakable from the previous 20.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
You know that's hearsay and cannot be used in court, right?
tryDEATH
Member
High-end console market, you're joking right that is the first time I have ever heard of that term and probably the funniest as well. At no point was Nintendo separated from the console fight through all their generations it always been a pillar and competed with Sega, PS, and Xbox and since the Xbox One and PS4 PC has been fully absorbed into it too as well the only hurdle for developers and publishers is if it is a fiscally responsible move by them to develop for all of the platforms. We have games that are literally online cross play on PC, Xbox, PS, and Switch, making up arbitrary classes to classify things to suit a narrative is silly especially in this case.
As for cloud gaming, I didn't hear any large concerted efforts from either Sony or the internet in general about cloud gaming being a huge factor or concern in this merger until the CMA's decision even EC didn't consider it a big enough concern to block the merger. Also cloud gaming itself is very speculative, we have been trying to figure it out for over a decade now and still struggling with the same issue which is latency and it is something we won't be able solve with out brute internet speed if at all, which is out of MS hands.
For me personally there is a bigger chance that handhelds and Smart TV's will have a bigger impact than cloud gaming in the next 10 years. The affordability and advancement of ssd's, fold-able screens, CPU's, and GPU's will only ramp up as AI can have a direct advancement impact on those technologies.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I'm curious if you're one of those people who thinks the laws of physics are more like guidelines or what. How exactly do they "solve for latency" short of putting a network of servers around the world every 50 miles or so? And how would that be cheaper than gamers just buying the hardware if they play games?
Let me be the first to assure you that if we ever became a civilization advanced enough to break the speed of light, we will be so advanced at that point that the concept of cloud as known today would be something you read about in the history books. Not that such a civilization would use something as primitive as books, knowledge would likely simply be installed into your brain directly. Assuming we even still used biological material at that point, the idea of a brain made of organic matter would itself probably be quaint.
Last edited:
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
If you think Nintendo competes with Sony and Microsoft the same way as Microsoft and Sony compete with each other, then you're lying to yourself.
Nintendo heavily relies on its first-party titles more than anyone else. The big third party triple A titles don't have much of an impact on the Nintendo platform.
The PC is an open platform... unless you think Sony and Microsoft are competing with Value and Epic games when you know they're not.
bitbydeath
Member
MS already said that Sony would have 10 years to create their own COD alternative.
Guess what that means.
Microsoft says 10 years is ‘sufficient for Sony to develop Call of Duty alternatives’ | VGC
Xbox tells UK regulator “there is no basis” for offering Sony a longer licensing agreement…
www.videogameschronicle.com
Ogbert
Member
The regulators would be all over the scenario you suggest.
It would be standard horizontal consolidation, with a larger party buying out direct competition.
Calverz
Member
Ah you changed your avatar? What happened to the blocked version?
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
That wasn't me. I have had this avatar since April, I guess.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
There are 3 consoles: Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo.
The argument was about COD's impact on consoles.
COD is available only on two consoles: Xbox and PlayStation.
So, of course, Nintendo was going to be separated. What else do you suggest should happen here? You're measuring the impact of COD's exclusivity on consoles, so why would you measure it on a console that doesn't even have COD to begin with?
That's the whole point, if a console can't survive without cod how do you explain the switch. That's the whole reason for the high powered console breakdown to remove that data point.
ToadMan
Member
The regulators always prefer to have a very narrowly defined market place for competition assessments and courts usually back them in those definitions.
The Meta/Within case had the FTC limiting the “market” for assessment to specifically Quest fitness apps while Meta tried to expand the market to all fitness apps whether Quest VR or not - even roping in peloton.
The court agreed with the FTC’s very narrow definition for competition concerns.
So eliminating Switch from this discussion is well within normal competition analysis parameters - after all the most valuable ABK content isn’t on Switch today.
In fact the regulators could probably have gone further and specifically argued about COD as an FPS on the FPS market and Diablo as an ARPG in the ARPG market.
Bearing in mind MS already has it’s own well-known exclusive FPS (and GAAS these days) and is attempting to buy the biggest.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Different dynamics and target audience and geographical markets.
Nintendo makes bank because of (1) being a handheld and (2) selling heavily in Japan and (3) relying heavily on JRPGs. Japanese gamers do not buy as much COD or even FPS games. It's very simple.
Nintendo would survive without FPS but wouldn't survive without JRPGs. Xbox can survive without JRPGs but would not survive without FPS and WRPGS.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
The competition concern is about consumers, not consoles.
There are a significant portion of COD consumers on PS (the majority on console in fact) and none on Switch.
So the question is are COD consumers - especially those today who don’t use or want MS services - harmed if MS takes control of that content?
Is MS incentivised now or in future to coerce those consumers into the MS ecosystem rather than compete through innovation and new content from their existing already huge (and expensive to run) studio count?
The CMA concluded it was extremely improbable MS pulls a zenimax with COD because it would be a major loss of revenue. Hence the console SLC being removed from their argument.
Switch isn’t relevant because there is no revenue from COD on switch so no one there to harm with this transaction.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
It's certainly a new term to describe something we've all known for a long time.
To pretend like Nintendo who no longer gets 3rd party support like they used to is in the same segment as Microsoft and Sony is purposefully ignorant.
Can you play CoD on Switch? Madden? Elden Ring? Cyberpunk? Jedi Survivor? Street Fighter 6?
PC is more analogous to the console market, but the methodology of buying and support is completely different from the console market. There isn't a central manufacturer of PCs, and the profits are more broken down and decentralized among multiple figures; Valve, Nvidia, AMD, Microsoft, and software developers.
Rarely are there high-profile games that are exclusive to PC aside from games developed specifically by Valve like Half-life Alyx or developed by indie developers.
Sony spent nearly half a billion dollars buying Gakai in 2012. They spent 380 million dollars which was more than they bought Insomniac for especially given inflation. They bought into the cloud but also realized that the ecosystem isn't there yet. That doesn't mean it isn't massively important. It's certainly a struggle but when the underlying technology allows it to be a thing, it completely removes the console sale from the calculation. It's an absolute game changer, which can't be ignored. Consoles struggled to get online as well, but when it did, it also changed things completely. And that was something that already had a poc in PC gaming...
Cloud is what will unlock handheld and smart tvs. Sony could very well put a PS5 chipset into a TV, but the chipset would have to become significantly smaller and easier to cool. The processors currently in smart tvs aren't anywhere close to getting the job done and that's not changing anytime soon. But it'll be the console manufacturers who unlock cloud in these areas, not TV manufacturers. Maybe Apple could be an exception there.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
Maybe you haven't been alive very long, but in just 1997 56K modems were a standard.
Less than 20 years later and we had 1-gigabit download speeds...
That's nearly 20x faster.
The combination of better data compression, faster internet speeds with lower latency, as well as AI will certainly get us to a future where cloud gaming is the norm...
all without breaking the speed of light :/
Slicker than your average
Banned
Came across this 
Bernardougf
Member
MasterCornholio
Member
I'm fine if we ban him like we did Florian.
Unknown Soldier
Member
The fact that you are arguing with me by bringing up bandwidth and even AI when I'm talking about immutable issues of latency because it quite literally takes time for data to travel hundreds of miles is proof that you don't have the slightest idea about what I'm talking about.
Again: humanity does not possess the technology needed to transfer data faster than the speed of light. As long as this is the case, there are permanently unsolvable latency issues in any cloud gaming network which doesn't place a nearly infinite number of servers outside each gamers house to reduce latency to the same level as simply owning console hardware themselves and having it in their house.
X-Wing
Member
Yep. It’s just the colteastwood of the other side.
feynoob
Banned
And what is worse is that these guys are adults who are 30+ years old. At that age, the last thing I would want to do is simp for a plastic box.
harry mason 1989
Banned
I agree
MasterCornholio
Member
I agree
They don't add anything to the discussion. Same goes for the Sage guy as well.
We have plenty of sources for updates on the deal. We don't need to post the crazy theories from those people here.
![L*][*N*K](/data/avatars/m/842/842515.jpg?1696510303){kind=avatar}
GHG
Gold Member
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Now that's a hall of fame if I ever saw one.
Came across this
Your first mistake was subscribing to the red shitter's twitter feed in the first place
drganon
Member
Says the guy who had no qualms about posting tweets from the likes of Foss and that sloth dumbass.Now that's a hall of fame if I ever saw one.
Your first mistake was subscribing to the red shitter's twitter feed in the first place
feynoob
Banned
Nope. They will lose money.
The entire point of call of duty is to generate more money. You can't do that with Xbox and PC. It's a yearly franchise and needs PS userbase.
GHG
Gold Member
Your first mistake was subscribing to the red shitter's twitter feed in the first place
It's just a news aggregator, what's the problem?
Last edited:
Pelta88
Member
Dude has a special affinity for those types.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
Actually, you just don't like that I answered your question so you ignored the answer.
Compression and decompression technologies can drastically reduce the size of the data that needs to be transferred. Yes or no?
Increased bandwidth and lower latency can drastically increase the speed and consistency in which data is transferred. Yes or no?
AI allows us and will better allow us in the future to push a lower-resolution data source and receive it at a higher resolution. Again, less data., yes or no?
Add in Edge AI and much of the processing of the data can happen at the client instead of solely in the cloud.
So again, we don't need to transfer data at the speed of light. We merely need to reduce latency beyond what is perceivable and there are many technologies that will go into doing that. Technologies you seem to be wholly ignorant of given you think the only answer is infinite servers outside of gamers' houses and because you realize that is not possible you conclude that cloud gaming itself is not possible.
Topher
Identifies as young
Nintendo gamers are not buying Switch for the same type of games as gamers who buy PlayStation and Xbox. This logic that the absence of Call of Duty from Switch means the absence of Call of Duty from PlayStation would be just as insignificant is completely faulty.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
If the CAT overturns the block, it goes back to the CMA to fix whatever the CAT found was wrong with their process. It doesn't change the outcome necessarily.
I do believe it would allow Microsoft to renegotiate with the CMA and probably offer better concessions, but the CMA may not be looking for concessions other than divestiture.
feynoob
Banned
We have to reach that stage first.
Right now, MS needs renegotiation first. If they can't do that, deal is dead.
Topher
Identifies as young
Could? Sure. Outside of the contracts that have been made in order to appease regulators Microsoft can do whatever they want.
Phil Spencer has said repeatedly that isn't going to happen though.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked