That tells us nothing more - actually less - than the provisional finding text because if you read that, it was the CMA's remedies in this order:
Microsoft can just offer it to Sony at market rate for ps+
I wouldn't assume that the newest CODs would automatically be on gamepass.
We don’t have to worry about that though, so it’s all good.
Oooh, I can play this game.
It actually might if the people in charge start to worry about optics from a potential loss. Right now, IMO, the FTC is sitting in a strong position whereby they can look tough without doing all that much. If MS gets blocked across the pond, the FTC will probably "win" their case by default (MS withdrawing from deal). But if FTC becomes last holdout, they will end up in a winner takes all proposition immediately. At that point I think political ambition comes into play. Do the people in charge stand to gain more by fighting to the end come hell or high water? Or by striking a deal they publicize as proof of their commitment and success for consumers? I do think that ramps up the pressure immensely on the FTC.
$70 x 20 million is around 1.4 billion. Ballpark for beginning some estimates, annually.
yep and who could forget all those great Naughty Dog classics on the xbox.
Only if you want to win stupid prizes.
How is anyone supposed to take you serious if you claim Azure is on its way to being a cloud services monopoly?
It's likely close to but just under 10%. MS has gone in and out of that threshold depending on the quarter. May have changed more recently though.
Fair point, but that could've changed in the future had they not been acquired by a platform holder.
The modern gamer fancies himself an industry analyst, just waiting in the wing to tell everyone why xyz is so important and how things should work out.
Makes sense, I just realized they're not giving specific numbers below 10%. Thanks!
I wonder if there's data on this? My guess is that there probably really is some conditioning on xbox gamers to not spend money. Like how there is price discrimination on android and apple devices.
No future games are obligated to release on your preferred platform of choice.
And still more accurate than the so called professional analysts.
With ps+ I imagine it would be an estimate of lost sales, calculated by release date and duration
Candy Crush folk don’t post here. My mother in-law plays it religiously.
If making another COD was possible everyone would be doing it. Including MS.
Well, very shortly MS will be making their own COD.
Game Pass cannibalizes sales so Microsoft will be taking losses in sales for hopeful gains in increasing subscription growth and console sales.
If my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike.
When the pros and arm chairs all say 100 different things every day, you can usually parse through and pick which ones you think are right to arrive at your conclusion.
It is a monopoly of "Selling" OS licenses. Nothing else can sell an OS like Windows does, so their market share for Sold OSes is much higher than their installed device marketshare, and same with Microsoft selling Office software licenses and subs. Regulators are about "markets", but its really about the money in those markets, rather than the share just for presence like, for example Libre Office, GIMP or Blender market share, Android and IOS marketshare is only a thing because of Play and the App store, which doesn't compete with Windows as the 95% marketshare OS for GAF-IGN type gaming.Windows isn’t an OS monopoly. They have by far the largest marketshare for Desktop OS, but that’s merely because their biggest rival - Apple - ties their OS to pricey hardware.
They’re dominant in Office. Again, not a monopoly. Alternatives exist.
How is anyone supposed to take you serious if you claim Azure is on its way to being a cloud services monopoly?
They’re competing in browsers with Edge, with only 5% marketshare. Bing has a fraction of users Google has, and yet they’re still in Search.
You should negotiate a consulting gig with them so you can show them the right way to acquire a multi billion dollar publisher.
The question is framed as if consumers are wrong for not smiling when access to games are restricted due to non-gaming revenue. I disagree with the proposition that people need to get over that.
I personally have always argued that even MS wouldn't find it worth it to fully foot the bill on GP. It honestly only makes sense if you're acquiring the publisher. If MS owns it, they pay salaries for the devs, get the marketing deal for free, but lose a portion of potential sales, but also can sell DLC still. It makes sense for them to put it on GP. Sony could try and negotiate it on PS+ but it would be ridiculous to do that without significant compensation. Selling it retail is a whole different story. I said this earlier and everyone laughed at me, but it's just common sense. Do you guys expect the government to make MS give the game away for free?
Movie-tie in games have historically been pretty shitty and what they are already doing seems to work. Their games are being made into movies and shows which have been very well received.
