Support NeoGAF

[Banjo64]

This isn't about clearing the deal. Just in favor.
There is bigger issues than cloud gaming here. So if we are going that route, I will let you know That I am against approving this deal, solely due to that price point 70$B, and what it will bring after it approved.

back to the cloud gaming topic.

The foreclosure part is impossible through cloud gaming, as Sony also have their library, and PS now(PS+). Activision alone isn't enough to close them down. And you know that.

CMA points in this regard is the future, rather than current development. And Activision titles isn't enough to give MS huge advantage.

It's not impossible, because Microsoft's own internal documents and third party documents show that streaming has been well received and it growing at a steady pace. Only Microsoft can leverage their infrastructure (brand recognition/content/Azure/OS) whereas Sony can't.

I can only cherry pick points here because the full assessment within the report is pages long. But it does deal with how Microsoft could do this, and what their incentive would be. In many cases Microsoft's own internal documentation is cited to validate the points.

 

[feynoob]

Why is MS shit in the PC department?

Because they want control, and pretty much a dickhead, when we want to modify our files.
It took them long time for us to control our gamepass pc files.
While they allow us to mod some of their games, I am still not going to trust them one bit.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Check out xbox first party during his reign

If it werent for the shit that was Ps3, xbox would have been in a worse position.

3rd parties publishers were having issues making their games run properly on ps3. This meant exclusives games for xbox. Plus COD and halo success. These trend covered the big hole, which xbox had, and that was the lack of 1st party studios.

If it werent for Phil, Xbox would have had the smallest studios number in the industry.

You mean the 360 era?

Following his retirement from Electronic Arts in February 2007, Mattrick was asked by Robbie Bach to serve as an external advisor to the Entertainment and Devices Division. In July 2007, Mattrick then officially joined Microsoft as a senior vice president overseeing the Xbox 360 and PC gaming businesses.[9] In the six years Mattrick oversaw the division, the Xbox 360 installed base grew from 10 million to more than 76 million worldwide and Xbox LIVE membership increased from 6 million to over 48 million.[10][11]

Best software era they had. Sure, they put too much weight in Kinect late in that gen's already lengthy timespan (longest gen in history), it made them a lot of needed revenue after the RRoD debacle, but Xbox has had isues ever since far greater than Mattrick. It's time to let that scapegoated excuse retire, especially since we have had all X1 gen and all of this one (so far) with the same issues, and guys like Phil Spencer were on the same team and with the same vision for X1 at the time of its launch. Issues that are being rectified next year by buying up a storied 3rd party publisher releasing "1st party games" they would have had regardless.

 

[Topher]

Because they want control, and pretty much a dickhead, when we want to modify our files.
It took them long time for us to control our gamepass pc files.
While they allow us to mod some of their games, I am still not going to trust them one bit.

You just want to mod in a butt naked Cortana. Damn pervert.

 

[feynoob]

Only Microsoft can leverage their infrastructure (brand recognition/content/Azure/OS) whereas Sony can't

Except for the part, where MS clearly states that xcloud is at a loss, and doesn't make any money for them.
They are losing money to maintain this tech.

Google and Amazon also exist, as MS isn't the only one in this sector.

 

[feynoob]

You mean the 360 era?

Best software era they had. Sure, they put too much weight in Kinect late in that gen's already lengthy timespan (longest gen in history), it made them a lot of needed revenue after the RRoD debacle, but Xbox has had isues ever since far greater than Mattrick. It's time to let that scapegoated excuse retire, especially since we have had all X1 gen and all of this one (so far) with the same issues. One's that are being rectified next year by buying up a storied 3rd party publisher releasing "1st party games" they would have had regardless.

I wish people would know how much important is first party studios.
If Xbox had 5 of their current studios during Xbox one, they wouldn't have had that much drought.

 

[Banjo64]

Except for the part, where MS clearly states that xcloud is at a loss, and doesn't make any money for them.
They are losing money to maintain this tech.

Which is why they have the incentive to withhold content, foreclose rivals and increase prices.

Google and Amazon also exist, as MS isn't the only one in this sector.

Google, Amazon, PlayStation and Nintendo don't have the complete overall package that Microsoft do right now (even without ABK).

Microsoft themselves even admit this (in relation to Google and Amazon);

252. Microsoft's internal documents suggest that rival non-console cloud gaming service providers looking to enter and expand in this market lack []:

 

[Pelta88]

Microsoft just invested 2 billion into the UK stock exchange infrastructure.

That's back channel leverage given how closely UK politicians are known to associate with investment bankers.

 

[feynoob]

Which is why they have the incentive to withhold content, foreclose rivals and increase prices.

Makes 0 sense for cloud gaming.

Google, Amazon, PlayStation and Nintendo don't have the complete overall package that Microsoft do right now (even without ABK).

Microsoft themselves even admit this (in relation to Google and Amazon;

252. Microsoft's internal documents suggest that rival non-console cloud gaming service providers looking to enter and expand in this market lack []:

They have the service. Google and Amazon have cloud service, which other companies can use
Keep in mind that our conversation is azure, and not the tech itself.

 

[feynoob]

Microsoft just invested 2 billion into the UK stock exchange infrastructure.

That's back channel leverage given how closely UK politicians are known to associate with investment bankers.

This is why I hate big corporations.
They can buy their ways with these moves.
Sick bastards.

 

[OsirisBlack]

Go on tell me this doesn't smell dirty.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/12/tech/microsoft-london-stock-exchange-deal/index.html

 

[sainraja]

Meta can't even handle owning Oculus. You thinking they'd do better with ABK? Also, you have no idea if they would withhold games from anyone. You're assuming they wouldn't because it fits the narrative you want to believe.

The same can be said of anyone. He is also just presenting another point of view — one that hasn't been that popular here, the one where Meta/Amazon/Tencent have been presented as the "big bad" and Microsoft is here to save the day, that they are better than them. No one knows that for certain outside of **apparently** the ones saying it, who want it to fit the narrative they want to believe.

 

[Banjo64]

Makes 0 sense for cloud gaming.

How does that make 0 sense for cloud gaming when Microsoft's internal documents and third party documents have shown that cloud gaming is well received and growing steadily in terms of popularity?

They have the service. Google and Amazon have cloud service, which other companies can use
Keep in mind that our conversation is azure, and not the tech itself.

The conversation is around everything. Google and Amazon don't have Microsoft's brand recognition (in terms of gaming) in the UK, they don't have the studios or IP. Sony and Nintendo do, but they don't have the infrastructure. Microsoft are the one company with everything.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

The same can be said of anyone. He is also just presenting another point of view — one that hasn't been that popular here, the one where Meta/Amazon/Tencent have been presented as the "big bad" and Microsoft is here to save the day, that they are better than them. No one knows that for certain outside of **apparently** the ones saying it, who want it to fit the narrative they want to believe.

Save it. You can say everything you just said about everything being said ITT. Not worth discussing unless you revise it.

 

[SoloKingRobert]

This is why I hate big corporations.
They can buy their ways with these moves.
Sick bastards.

Not really. Microsoft can support the infrastructure with the amount complex technology they have...

 

[feynoob]

How does that make 0 sense for cloud gaming when Microsoft's internal documents and third party documents have shown that cloud gaming is well received and growing steadily in terms of popularity?

I told you that MS maintains this tech at a loss rate. Azure doesn't generate money from xcloud.
Popularity is one thing, but bringing money is key here. Microsoft doesn't generate any profit from this tech.

The conversation is around everything. Google and Amazon don't have Microsoft's brand recognition (in terms of gaming) in the UK, they don't have the studios or IP. Sony and Nintendo do, but they don't have the infrastructure. Microsoft are the one company with everything.

We are running around circles with this topic .

Google and Amazon provide the same thing as azure MS. Not the content of their Luna/stadia.

Any company that wants a piece of this sector/cloud gaming can work with Amazon and Google instead of MS.

 

[sainraja]

Save it. You can say everything you just said about everything being said ITT. Not worth discussing unless you revise it.

Uh what...lol. You were doing the same thing you were telling him not to. That's what I was trying to highlight. You are asking others to "revise it" or simply trying to "dismiss" their posts by saying they are assuming, when you are guilting of the same. It's all discussion here, having a different point of view IS absolutely okay and involves making assumptions, specially for the scenario being discussed — which both of you were.

We don't know for certain if it is a good thing if MS owns ABK. Same as we don't know if it a bad thing if MS owns ABK. Points can be brought up showing both sides. No need to shut someone down because you don't like what they are saying or it is not fitting the narrative you are trying to believe.

 

[DarkMage619]

No, we don't have any proof. Do we really need proof on whether or not Bethesda was releasing their first major IP in decades only on the console with the smallest market share? I don't. If you do then that's fine. Believe what you want. Common sense is on the side of Starfield being multiplatform.

PlayStation was always a bigger brand than Xbox. Elder Scrolls: Morrowind still did not hit PlayStation at all. Common sense would suggest that it should have happened. Street Fighter 4 was on Xbox, 5 was not. Final Fantasy games were on Xbox the latest ones are not. There is no guarantee any 3rd party multi-platform title will hit ANY system or stay multi-platform. Things change.

In the case of Bethesda we aren't even talking about a 3rd party any longer. I believe what I can verify. If you can share any official press release or notice that shows Starfield was a PlayStation game I'll take it. Otherwise we can wait for that title to hit PlayStation like Octopath Traveler 2 will hit Xbox.

 

[Pelta88]

This is why I hate big corporations.
They can buy their ways with these moves.
Sick bastards.

Timing is everything here. 2 Billion injected into the UK trading infrastructure right when they need UK influence the most?

 

[onesvenus]

From a new third party report published by the CMA here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6391da18d3bf7f1bcd58284a/Market_Participant_A.pdf

We believe Microsoft is seeking to propagate innovation and embrace the move towards subscription services and cloud gaming – it is unsurprising that a technology company can see where the direction of travel is headed. By contrast, it seems that Sony may be looking at this transaction through the lens of a hardware company and not with the future development of the industry in mind. There is no evidence to suggest that this deal would inhibit Sony or any other rival's ability to compete in the multi-game subscription or cloud gaming markets. The barriers to entry are low, the market is extraordinarily dynamic and new competition can arise through innovation and original content – all of which would be positive for consumers.

Some key points from a user called POKEYCLYDE in the other forum:

- They basically compare Game Pass to Netflix in that, despite Netflix being the clear market leader in the beginning, other TV subscriptions services have caught up recently (in a short period of time) based on providing quality content (which gives credence to a pro-competitive environment).

- Cloud gaming removes the expensive barrier of entry (needing to buy a console) which makes gaming more accessible for consumers.

- Services that rely on content being provided by the platform holder tend to be pro-competitive and can be disrupted by a competitor. Where as services that rely on user generated content are harder to disrupt (things like social media). Gamepass is viewed as the former, therefore pro-competition.

- They talk about the dynamism of the industry and how games like Fortnite have been able to capture a large market share, which to me sounds like a direct counter to Call of Duty being a juggernaut that cannot have an equal.

- Call of Duty coming to gamepass is pro-consumer. Gives gamers more choice.

- They talk about how Microsoft wouldn't be incentivized to make Call of Duty exclusive, as it is a community based game and doing so would diminish it's consumers. This is most evident by Microsoft's most comparable transaction of Mojang, and the strategy they employed with Minecraft. They go on to say EVEN IF Microsoft made Call of Duty exclusive, Playstation would still have more users than Xbox in the unlikely scenario that all the Call of Duty users on Playstation migrated to Xbox.

It seems not everyone is against the deal. This one is in fact quite strongly in favour of the deal. It would be interesting to know who is behind it

 

[Pelta88]

Lets not post Colt's love letters to the CMA or the conversation will become convoluted.

 

[feynoob]

Timing is everything here. 2 Billion injected into the UK trading infrastructure right when they need UK influence the most?

That is saying of "approve this deal, and we will invest more in your country" talk.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

Uh what...lol. You were doing the same thing you were telling him not to. That's what I was trying to highlight. You are asking others to "revise it" or simply trying to "dismiss" their posts by saying they are assuming, when you are guilting of the same. It's all discussion here, having a different point of view IS absolutely okay and involves making assumptions, specially for the scenario being discussed — which both of you were.

We don't know for certain if it is a good thing if MS owns ABK. Same as we don't know if it a bad thing if MS owns ABK. Points can be brought up showing both sides. No need to shut someone down because you don't like what they are saying or it is not fitting the narrative you are trying to believe.

I didn't come off the way I wanted to, sorry about that. Made this post prior to my morning coffee so I apologize if I was being short with you.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Timing is everything here. 2 Billion injected into the UK trading infrastructure right when they need UK influence the most?

Lobbying

 

[akimbo009]

That is saying of "approve this deal, and we will invest more in your country" talk.

These kind of deals don't come quickly. Timing is interesting but I doubt it's planned or coordinated in anyway. Xbox is pretty isolated as an organization within MS from Azure. Very different channels and strategies and not done in concert.

 

[feynoob]

These kind of deals don't come quickly. Timing is interesting but I doubt it's planned or coordinated in anyway. Xbox is pretty isolated as an organization within MS from Azure. Very different channels and strategies and not done in concert.

MS don't do things without a purpose.
This deal took a lot of planing. Nothing happens without a coincidence. Especially, when you have a $68b purchase.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

It is an inaccurate to say PlayStation is no longer supported.

Stop reading with your ears

 

[Topher]

PlayStation was always a bigger brand than Xbox. Elder Scrolls: Morrowind still did not hit PlayStation at all. Common sense would suggest that it should have happened. Street Fighter 4 was on Xbox, 5 was not. Final Fantasy games were on Xbox the latest ones are not. There is no guarantee any 3rd party multi-platform title will hit ANY system or stay multi-platform. Things change.

In the case of Bethesda we aren't even talking about a 3rd party any longer. I believe what I can verify. If you can share any official press release or notice that shows Starfield was a PlayStation game I'll take it. Otherwise we can wait for that title to hit PlayStation like Octopath Traveler 2 will hit Xbox.

You keep asking for proof when I've already stated there is none. Not sure why that isn't sinking in.

Prior to Morrowind, Bethesda was predominantly a PC game publisher/developer. Prior to Starfield, Bethesda had years of publishing/developing games for consoles including PlayStation. False equivalence.

I'll agree that it is certainly possible that Microsoft paid for exclusivity for Starfield though. Outside of that, do you really think Starfield was not going to be on PlayStation if MS had not bought Bethesda? Be honest with yourself.

 

[feynoob]

You keep asking for proof when I've already stated there is none. Not sure why that isn't sinking in.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Be honest with yourself.

Oof

That's quite the challenge

 

[OsirisBlack]

Stop reading with your ears

man fuck i just about spit my coffee on my keyboard ..... stop it.

 

[feynoob]

 

[onesvenus]

Timing is everything here. 2 Billion injected into the UK trading infrastructure right when they need UK influence the most?

Yeah, a 2 billion deal done in 4 days. Come on, even you can make better arguments than this.

Lets not post Colt's love letters to the CMA or the conversation will become convoluted.

Yeah, I'm sure the CMA will publish every piece of feedback they have received and not those that are interesting to them.
This kind of drive by postings by people like you are running this forum to the ground.

 

[Three]

MS then:

In addition, we hope that players will be eager to play traditional console games from Activision Blizzard on other platforms via our cloud game streaming technology. This promises to open up mobile gaming, creating new distribution opportunities for game developers outside of mobile app stores while delivering compelling and immersive experiences for players by using the power of the cloud. And we can extend the joy of playing to devices that people already own, including Smart TVs and laptops.

MS now:

Cloud gaming is a nascent technology that does not yet have a compelling use case. The quality of general purpose devices like mobile handsets is growing so fast that many complicated games can be played locally on the device and do not need extra computational power from the cloud. Latency – how long it takes for the instruction to shoot my opponent to get from my finger, to the server, into the
game, and back to my screen – can be significant and degrade the quality of fast-paced games run in the cloud. No one likes their character to be killed immediately every time they enter the game.

It's amazing how they went from "This will help us bring it to more platforms and compete with Apple and Google" to "this is pretty useless shit, we're just a better multiplatform developer than Activison".

so unless cloud gaming provides a significant competitive advantage, providers will not build a business model around it.
Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Tencent, IBM, Sony and others have assets they could use to potentially enter and compete to provide cloud services in gaming if the right use case arose.

They already have. Somebody also tried to enter it recently but failed because securing content was difficult and costly. Maybe your change in stance is related to that MS.

 

[Topher]

"In 40 years, the FTC has never lost an appeal of its own decision"

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

PDF statement

Most of this is defending Zenimax exclusivity and pushing that Xbox honored their commitments and promises, which makes me believe the Zenimax issue is the wedge that's the biggest concern to Microsoft right now as it's being used against them as an example of them breaking promises.

Using Starfield and Redfall as examples, their defense boils down to that both those games are new IP, they aren't established, have no-preexisting sales or revenue, or association with PlayStation, therefore making both games exclusive to Xbox/PC would have no impact on Sony by excluding a PS5 release for these games, and they are not taking away content from other gaming communities, but expanding them. They also use an older quote from Phil in 2020 showing they would take a look at releasing Zenimax games on other platforms by a case-by-case basis.

The tidbits about COD are retreading what we've already seen, so it's really the Zenimax defense that is the focus here.

 

[OsirisBlack]

"In 40 years, the FTC has never lost an appeal of its own decision"

Just watched the entire video and I had no clue they were batting 100.

 

[feynoob]

it seems MS is doing some damage control.

 

[Topher]

Just watched the entire video and I had no clue they were batting 100.

Did you see the part where he talks about appeals? This is damn weird and I never realized it. If the administrative law judge rules against the FTC then the FTC can appeal. That appeal goes to.......the FTC commission. After that, Microsoft can appeal in federal court.

lol.....we are going to be here a while folks

 

[feynoob]

MS is getting roasted.

 

[mansoor1980]

MS is getting roasted.

 

[reksveks]

"In 40 years, the FTC has never lost an appeal of its own decision"

Wondering if he is talking about the internal appeals process? But even if so, not sure if it's true.

To other comments, the theory that MS are investing in the LSE to curry favour with the CMA seems off cause the CMA are pretty independent.

 

[adamsapple]

MS is getting roasted.

Getting roasted by getting support from other companies ?

weird flex but ok Fey

 

[DeepEnigma]

Getting roasted by getting support from other companies ?

weird flex but ok Fey

Who's the company?

 

[Topher]

Wondering if he is talking about the internal appeals process? But even if so, not sure if it's true.

Yes, that is correct. lol....strangely enough the FTC has never disagreed with the FTC. I posted about that in the reply to OsirisBlack . At least now it makes more sense why FTC isn't' going to federal court right off the bat.

 

[adamsapple]

Who's the company?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Yes, that is correct. lol....strangely enough the FTC has never disagreed with the FTC. I posted about that in the reply to OsirisBlack . At least now it makes more sense why FTC isn't' going to federal court right off the bat.

Why I never ..

 

[DeepEnigma]

Your guess is as good as mine.

 

[OsirisBlack]

PDF statement

Most of this is defending Zenimax exclusivity and pushing that Xbox honored their commitments and promises, which makes me believe the Zenimax issue is the wedge that's the biggest concern to Microsoft right now as it's being used against them as an example of them breaking promises.

Using Starfield and Redfall as examples, their defense boils down to that both those games are new IP, they aren't established, have no-preexisting sales or revenue, or association with PlayStation, therefore making both games exclusive to Xbox/PC would have no impact on Sony by excluding a PS5 release for these games, and they are not taking away content from other gaming communities, but expanding them. They also use an older quote from Phil in 2020 showing they would take a look at releasing Zenimax games on other platforms by a case-by-case basis.

The tidbits about COD are retreading what we've already seen, so it's really the Zenimax defense that is the focus here.

This is an interesting read but comes off again as disingenuous. They made sure to include every talking point that helps their cast but again omitted the one where they state they had no incentive to make future games exclusive. There is a reason they keep ignoring that talking point.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Ah the triple standards I see.

Oh well.

 

[OsirisBlack]

Yes, that is correct. lol....strangely enough the FTC has never disagreed with the FTC. I posted about that in the reply to OsirisBlack . At least now it makes more sense why FTC isn't' going to federal court right off the bat.

The most interesting thing about that video (in my opinion) is that he's basically saying this is in a sense some sort of posturing/intimidation tactic by the FTC. Basically, they are hoping either Activision or MS walks away and just gives up. Activision would net a free 3 billion and I doubt MS would walk away from it.