Once a monopoly is established its a lot harder to take down with regulation. The whole point of the CMA of blocking it now is because it will be much more difficult to dismantle once an anti competitive environment is established.
Hopefully that helps.
You're not making any sense.
But can you buy happiness???Imagine how many supermodel girlfriends I can get if I have 3 billion
Not necessarily, Nintendo could come out tomorrow with a VR headset and pitch it to people and still gain share. In fact, there are rumors that Microsoft could actually come out with a VR set of their own:
winbuzzer.com
When you dont have a point.. strawman it ... the stupid shill fanboy way of life ... nothing we can do .. let them bend in mental gymnastics for their plastic box or shit game rent service
Psnow doesn't have the money. Sony will spend a lot of money making those games exclusively on their psnow.
Laptops gets damaged all time. I had my laptop screen turned to kebabs, because my little brother and my nephew spill drinks and crack the screen with the mouse.
Not necessarily, Nintendo could come out tomorrow with a VR headset and pitch it to people and still gain share. In fact, there are rumors that Microsoft could actually come out with a VR set of their own:
Microsoft Patent Points to Upcoming Xbox VR Gaming Headset - WinBuzzer
A Microsoft patent shows the company is working on a Windows/Xbox VR headset that would compete with Sony and Facebook (Oculus).
VR doesn't have the same network effects that cloud gaming would have, the two markets are markedly different.
It's almost wonderous how a company not locking up the most popular content providers ahead of a market's emergence makes for a competitive market.
So should the CMA approve the acquisition on a hypothetical future where Microsoft does not restrict cloud gaming access to their service?
https://rent.love/Imagine how many supermodel girlfriends I can get if I have 3 billion
They blocked it based on cloud gaming. There's no double standard.
And Microsoft could launch their own Call of Duty, given the funds and time. No need to acquire a company for that.
You are denying Activision from renting their business to other competitors. They will need a high return, if you want exclusive.
From your side, you aren't damaging anything.
That is what I am doing. I am using a wifi, in the 2nd floor house. The wifi is far away from me and we have a lot of connections to be our wifi.
Desire leads to many hidden pathways.
They're saving the market to allow others to compete in the could space. That's something you're not understanding.
Sony didn't make major acquisitions outside of Bungie, which is still acting as a third party. Maybe if you tried looking more into the CMA's report, then you would know they wouldn't allow Sony to buy major publishers like ABK if they're well ahead of MS.
It's not making any sense to you because you don't know why they blocked it and their reasoning behind it. You're just making assumptions.
I just wanted to use the gif. I didn't think I'd ever get to use it here.
The CMA doesn't exist to stop market leaders from existing, or companies from growing. It exists to stop unfair competition from acquisitions. Nobody will ever stop MS from buying as many small studios as they want and growing them over time to as big as MS wants them to be.
yep exactly, they openly stated they viewed Sony like Blockbuster and you even see it still with Spencer’s recent bizarre interview responses where he says people won’t sell their PS5s just because Starfield is great
And yet the CMA protected the console market leader - who is also a very large corporation- and has 90% market share. Theyvalso stopped innovation or advancement in the cloud gaming space - a segment by their own admission is both inits infancy and somewhat undefined. Additionally, the CMA identified MS as the cloud market leader based on GamePass subscribers. Not every single person on GamePass uses the cloud - id venture that's a minimal part of their subscribers.
not to even go into the whole Sony is tiny compared to Microsoft aspect, where the bleep do you get 90% market share from in that nonsensical diatribe?
If you zoom in on his left jacket pocket, you can clearly see the bulge of that Sony contract that Jimbo won't sign.
That path becomes so much harder if MS consolidate the cloud market though. The chance of being able to provide competitive content is massively reduced if MS own them. The company must build the cloud infrastructure (unless they have it), then even if they do that, they'd probably have to hope that Microsoft play nicely with Windows licensing because asking the remaining third party vendors to support an alternative (e.g. Linux) further reduces the likelihood of getting games unfortunately (as Stadia found out).
You can lose market leader, but you can't lose monopoly.
What you are describing is market leader, not a monopoly.
They don't understand monopoly.
Not acting against =/= Protecting
The regulators narrowed the market definition to "high performance consoles" or something along those lines.
I see. Good point. However I don't get why bringing COD to the Switch has become such a huge point during the trial if they're a non factor.
Microsoft’s own internal documents proved/supported that notion.
Because Microsoft wanted to push the line that this deal is great for console competition, meanwhile they get to build a cloud monopoly in 10 years.
Not just what
Banjo64
said, you can even notice that Spencer barely mentioned Nintendo in his now-infamous XCast interview. He specifically mentioned people not selling their PS5s if Starfield is great.