Support NeoGAF

[Ogbert]

The real question that people need to ask, is how many IPs will MS own, if they close this deal?

That is the thing CMA is using. It's not just Activision blizzard. But also MS content and gamepass content is included, which is giving them major advantage.

Wish people can see this from outside perspective.

I personally think the deal is very, very likely to go through.

I’m going to be *that guy* on the internet, as regulatory competition law is my day job. That said, I only know a little about the legal niceties of video game publishing/development and absolutely zero about cloud gaming. So it’s an informed opinion, but still only an opinion.

But I do understand how the European Commission and domestic regulators approach cases and the very simple fact is the MS and Xbox are a minority entity within this market. They would never block an acquisition on strict IP points.

Of course, that raises the cloud point. I certainly do not pretend to know the complexities at play, but as this is a forward looking concern, MS could easily make the necessary concessions to see the deal bundled over the line.

It will get done.

 

[Bernoulli]

Microsoft now has a decent case. Amazon has just released their version of Cloud Gaming in the UK like a month ago. All Amazon Prime members in the UK can now play Fortnite and other games via Luna cloud. There's more Prime members than Xbox Game Ultimate members in the UK.

That's the CMA logic.

they have nothing

that means every xbox, android phone and PC with windows on the earth has acces to Fortnite for free wich makes it the market leader

 

[Ogbert]

I think the EU has a different approach though. They will look at the here and now and probably pass the deal and when Microsoft establishes itself as a monopoly they will just fine them.

Yep.

 

[feynoob]

I personally think the deal is very, very likely to go through.

I’m going to be *that guy* on the internet, as regulatory competition law is my day job. That said, I only know a little about the legal niceties of video game publishing/development and absolutely zero about cloud gaming. So it’s an informed opinion, but still only an opinion.

But I do understand how the European Commission and domestic regulators approach cases and the very simple fact is the MS and Xbox are a minority entity within this market. They would never block an acquisition on strict IP points.

Of course, that raises the cloud point. I certainly do not pretend to know the complexities at play, but as this is a forward looking concern, MS could easily make the necessary concessions to see the deal bundled over the line.

It will get done.

The issue is that MS had no plan with cloud market concessions, which is why CMA blocked this deal on that ground.

MS essentially requested all revenue that is being generated from Psnow belongs to them at 100%. This means that Sony will have to pay to put those games on the service and allow MS to reap all the benefits.
This is bad, because MS is denying Sony any cut from those purchases. For Sony, it bad because they have to pay for COD to be on their service and they won't gain anything in return other than sub revenue. There will be not be enough money to put future COD games on their service.

This is not good for cloud market. If MS can behave like that early stage, then they can exhibit much worse practices once they get their hands on Activision.

CMA wants to stop MS from doing that.

Had MS allowed the regular revenues split, CMA wouldn't have had any issue, as there is benefits to both companies.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Just in time when Amazon released their version of Luna cloud gaming service in the UK about 1 month ago.

How many pack-in controller devices have they confirmed sold with FireTV sticks in the UK to support "high-end console gaming" via their cloud offering or is it being used through UK devices with mouse and keyboard?

Gamepass Ultimate offering is largely being accessed by consumers via devices that have control methods sympathetic to playing high end console gaming via cloud.

Even if all the other ways Amazon's offer didn't line up, actually did, the control method that's packed-in with the majority device for using an Amazon sub(firetv remote) isn't even at the level of a virtual mouse/keyboard on smartphone, or even capable for high-end console gaming from the 8Bit era.

 

[Ogbert]

The issue is that MS had no plan with cloud market concessions, which is why CMA blocked this deal on that ground.

MS essentially requested all revenue that is being generated from Psnow belongs to them at 100%. This means that Sony will have to pay to put those games on the service and allow MS to reap all the benefits.
This is bad, because MS is denying Sony any cut from those purchases. For Sony, it bad because they have to pay for COD to be on their service and they won't gain anything in return other than sub revenue. There will be not be enough money to put future COD games on their service.

This is not good for cloud market. If MS can behave like that early stage, then they can exhibit much worse practices once they get their hands on Activision.

CMA wants to stop MS from doing that.

Had MS allowed the regular revenues split, CMA wouldn't have had any issue, as there is benefits to both companies.

Interesting.

But MS get round that by simply adjusting the fees that they charge for their cloud service. Or, at the very least, making commitments to equal and open access. And quite right too.

But the fact that the block is focussing on cloud services is tacit approval of the acquisition relating to the ‘terrestrial’ market.

These companies aren’t arguing over what happens in 2025. They’re arguing over 2035 and beyond.

 

[Nydius]

Yep.

And yet you as someone whose day job is “regulatory law” should know that looking at the situation as “well it won’t give them a possible monopoly NOW” is a pathetically short term way of evaluating markets.

Once a monopoly happens, it is near impossible to break it up. Better to make sure it can’t happen in the first place, lest we end up with another Facebook/Meta situation where regulators sat hands off as they snapped up competing platforms to add to their own.

 

[feynoob]

Interesting.

But MS get round that by simply adjusting the fees that they charge for their cloud service. Or, at the very least, making commitments to equal and open access. And quite right too.

But the fact that the block is focussing on cloud services is tacit approval of the acquisition relating to the ‘terrestrial’ market.

These companies aren’t arguing over what happens in 2025. They’re arguing over 2035 and beyond.

Xcloud shows what MS is capable.
In short of time, they took over browser, mobile and TV's.
They are expanding at a massive rate.
In 10 years, they could have xcloud as a console, where users will only need their controller.

With their content and the quality of their service, they will be the preferred platform of gaming for casuals.

 

[Ogbert]

And yet you as someone whose day job is “regulatory law” should know that looking at the situation as “well it won’t give them a possible monopoly NOW” is a pathetically short term way of evaluating markets.

Once a monopoly happens, it is near impossible to break it up. Better to make sure it can’t happen in the first place, lest we end up with another Facebook/Meta situation where regulators sat hands off as they snapped up competing platforms to add to their own.

Indeed. That’s the risk.

But there’s nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly, if it is born of having the best product. Say Sony’s European market share swells to 80%. Should they be punished for that? Is it their fault for being the best?

What you ask of regulators is impossible. They can only apply basic principles of open access and pricing. It’s not their job to try and influence the market.

By the way, on the subject of Facebook, when did you last log into your MySpace page?

 

[IFireflyl]

Even Jez Corden is dubious.

The cynic in me can't help but pour scorn on this Reuters report. The headline offers hope that the deal will pass, despite the fact the information on it potentially clearing is several weeks out of date. May 15th was always within the expected region for a final decision for the EU, and if Reuters just tacked on previous information back from March — it feels like a bit of a reach to suggest the deal will go through.

Microsoft was thoroughly blindsided by the CMA's decision, having previously expected their commitments to smaller cloud providers such as Boosteroid among others would see off the so-called "concerns" about the cloud market. Despite offering to ensure blanket access to Call of Duty and other ABK games, even to competitors like PlayStation and Nintendo, the CMA opted to block the deal. I suspect Microsoft won't be taking this report from Reuters too seriously — and you probably shouldn't either.

 

[Ogbert]

Xcloud shows what MS is capable.
In short of time, they took over browser, mobile and TV's.
They are expanding at a massive rate.
In 10 years, they could have xcloud as a console, where users will only need their controller.

With their content and the quality of their service, they will be the preferred platform of gaming for casuals.

So here’s the basic challenge to that concern:

So what?

As long as it is priced accordingly (agree that this is likely the sticking point) and as long as there is open access for consumers, why should any given company be punished for producing the best version of a service.

Don’t get me wrong, everything single decision that MS makes should be under the microscope, but ‘being the preferred platform for gaming casuals’ sounds to me like an excellent commercial strategy.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Indeed. That’s the risk.

But there’s nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly, if it is born of having the best product. Say Sony’s European market share swells to 80%. Should they be punished for that? Is it their fault for being the best?

What you ask of regulators is impossible. They can only apply basic principles of open access and pricing. It’s not their job to try and influence the market.

By the way, on the subject of Facebook, when did you last log into your MySpace page?

The problem isn’t a monopoly created by being first or having the best product, or the best price but rather by reaching it through anti competitive moves. MS is already ahead and they have the product + the content to get there, what they are trying to do is to lock the future by buying the market.

Microsoft isn’t being punished, nor are they being prevented from creating a monopoly through fair competition.

 

[IFireflyl]

So here’s the basic challenge to that concern:

So what?

As long as it is priced accordingly (agree that this is likely the sticking point) and as long as there is open access for consumers, why should any given company be punished for producing the best version of a service.

Don’t get me wrong, everything single decision that MS makes should be under the microscope, but ‘being the preferred platform for gaming casuals’ sounds to me like an excellent commercial strategy.

They aren't being punished for producing the best version of a service. They're being told they can't buy up the largest third-party publishers in order to foreclose future competition. They're still free to expand and enhance cloud gaming.

 

[Bernardougf]

Every three days we have one ... and them he gets a ban and another one takes his place ... is like clockwork

 

[DeepEnigma]

The problem isn’t a monopoly created by being first or having the best product but rather by reaching it through anti competitive moves. MS is already ahead and they have the product + the content to get there, what they are trying to do is to lock the future by buying the market.

Microsoft isn’t being punished, nor are they being prevented from creating a monopoly through fair competition.

They aren't being punished for producing the best version of a service. They're being told they can't buy up the largest third-party publishers in order to foreclose future competition. They're still free to expand and enhance cloud gaming.

I don't get how some just refuse to understand this. Either cognitive dissonance, or willful dismissal.

 

[SoloKingRobert]

they have nothing

that means every xbox, android phone and PC with windows on the earth has acces to Fortnite for free wich makes it the market leader

Nvidia also offers free access to Fortnight with GeForce Now, which is the entire UK population.

 

[Ogbert]

The problem isn’t a monopoly created by being first or having the best product, or the best price but rather by reaching it through anti competitive moves. MS is already ahead and they have the product + the content to get there, what they are trying to do is to lock the future by buying the market.

Microsoft isn’t being punished, nor are they being prevented from creating a monopoly through fair competition.

Agree.

But I expect they can make adjustments to appease any concerns. If it’s a case of allowing CoD on alternative cloud platforms and making sure that the pricing isn’t punitive.

Obviously it comes down to how much MS is prepared to (or needs to) concede on this particular point.

 

[reinking]

I personally think the deal is very, very likely to go through.

I’m going to be *that guy* on the internet, as regulatory competition law is my day job. That said, I only know a little about the legal niceties of video game publishing/development and absolutely zero about cloud gaming. So it’s an informed opinion, but still only an opinion.

But I do understand how the European Commission and domestic regulators approach cases and the very simple fact is the MS and Xbox are a minority entity within this market. They would never block an acquisition on strict IP points.

Of course, that raises the cloud point. I certainly do not pretend to know the complexities at play, but as this is a forward looking concern, MS could easily make the necessary concessions to see the deal bundled over the line.

It will get done.

I guess my question is to get a better understanding.

The CMA currently blocked this deal. It is done. Are you saying that MS will win the appeal with the CAT and when it goes back to the CMA they (MS) will make the necessary concession?

 

[Thirty7ven]

Agree.

But I expect they can make adjustments to appease any concerns. If it’s a case of allowing CoD on alternative cloud platforms and making sure that the pricing isn’t punitive.

Obviously it comes down to how much MS is prepared to (or needs to) concede on this particular point.

Microsoft was given the chance to propose remedies that would satisfy the CMA’s concerns, and they knew which remedies the CMA were proposing. They didn’t come to an agreement with Amazon nor Sony, and their proposals for other services were hilarious. Which just goes to show MS’s intentions.

 

[Bernoulli]

I guess my question is to get a better understanding.

The CMA currently blocked this deal. It is done. Are you saying that MS will win the appeal with the CAT and when it goes back to the CMA they (MS) will make the necessary concession?

no they can't
People need to understand that it's too late to make concessions because CMA does they their Job

1. CMA said in their final report that they knew Microsoft offered the 10y deals only after the regulators intervention

2. Microsoft first tactic was to foreclose competition they even confirmed it to the CMA that a block would destroy their plans

3. CMA offered structural remedies and said we can talk about behavioral remedies but Microsoft decided that it has to go through without any, the 10 years deal were useless and just PR stunt to get public support of the good guy

Even if Microsoft manages to get the appeal the CMA can decide structural remedies again

 

[Ogbert]

I guess my question is to get a better understanding.

The CMA currently blocked this deal. It is done. Are you saying that MS will win the appeal with the CAT and when it goes back to the CMA they (MS) will make the necessary concession?

I don’t know and won’t pretend to know. I have little first hand experience on acquisitions.

My day job involves responding to the EC and domestic regulators (UK, Dutch and German) on the various investigations that are pending/underway into the large American company I work for.

But investigations can go on indefinitely and have nothing like the strict timeframes at play here.

So no idea.

 

[IFireflyl]

This is the company that wants to pay $69 billion for Activision Blizzard King:




I guess the money for raises is all tied up in this acquisition.

 

[demigod]

Indeed. That’s the risk.

But there’s nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly, if it is born of having the best product. Say Sony’s European market share swells to 80%. Should they be punished for that? Is it their fault for being the best?

What you ask of regulators is impossible. They can only apply basic principles of open access and pricing. It’s not their job to try and influence the market.

By the way, on the subject of Facebook, when did you last log into your MySpace page?

Nvidia/Intel should just buy AMD since you think a monopoly like this is ok.

 

[feynoob]

Nvidia/Intel should just buy AMD since you think a monopoly like this is ok.

Sony and Nintendo should merge too.

 

[LordCBH]

This is the company that wants to pay $69 billion for Activision Blizzard King:




I guess the money for raises is all tied up in this acquisition.

A company that has more than enough cash for pay raises. My small ass company can do it, why can’t the trillion $ company?

 

[Ogbert]

Sony and Nintendo should merge too.

What if MS cut a deal with Nintendo to provide their online / cloud gaming, and select Nintendo games appeared on Xbox.

Is that unfair?

 

[Banjo64]

This is the company that wants to pay $69 billion for Activision Blizzard King:




I guess the money for raises is all tied up in this acquisition.

L after L after L after L for Microsoft this past month. This one is particularly embarrassing.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

This is the company that wants to pay $69 billion for Activision Blizzard King:




I guess the money for raises is all tied up in this acquisition.

no raises for Jezz, Tim, Colt and Tom

 

[Banjo64]

What if MS cut a deal with Nintendo to provide their online / cloud gaming, and select Nintendo games appeared on Xbox.

Is that unfair?

Extend embrace extinguish - Nintendo would be fools to get any further in to bed with MS.

 

[Ogbert]

Extend embrace extinguish - Nintendo would be fools to get any further in to bed with MS.

That’s not what I asked. Companies are allowed to make foolish decisions.

Is it anti-competitive?

Nintendo have a monopoly in Japan. Xbox have zero presence. MS cut a deal with them to provide their online infrastructure in exchange for select Nintendo titles to appear on their platform. Nintendo get an online infrastructure that wasn’t designed in 1987.

Sony, the market leader in the US and Europe is excluded.

Yes or no?

 

[GHG]

no raises for Jezz, Tim, Colt and Tom

Now I understand why Jez is buying a PS5 and DarkMage619 is MIA.

Edit: actually maybe the latter is here afterall...

 

[Banjo64]

That’s not what I asked. Companies are allowed to make foolish decisions.

Is it anti-competitive?

Nintendo have a monopoly in Japan. Xbox have zero presence. MS cut a deal with them to provide their online infrastructure in exchange for select Nintendo titles to appear on their platform. Nintendo get an online infrastructure that wasn’t designed in 1987.

Sony, the market leader in the US and Europe is excluded.

Yes or no?

You asked what if MS cut a deal with Nintendo and I’m telling you that with the evidence out there Nintendo would be absolutely suicidal to entertain the idea.

Nintendo don’t need Microsoft’s tendrils in their online infrastructure. I don’t know what you are talking about in terms of 1987 infrastructure, as far as I know practically all PS/Xbox/Nintendo games are peer 2 peer and the only serious distinguishing factor is things like handles, messaging and parties.

 

[GHG]

Nintendo don't have 1987 network infrastructure ffs.

 

[Ogbert]

Nintendo don't have 1987 network infrastructure ffs.

Fair enough. I apologise.

It’s from 1994.

 

[Dick Jones]

This is the company that wants to pay $69 billion for Activision Blizzard King:




I guess the money for raises is all tied up in this acquisition.

Those Sting concerts don't pay for themselves

 

[Thirty7ven]

That’s not what I asked. Companies are allowed to make foolish decisions.

Is it anti-competitive?

Nintendo have a monopoly in Japan. Xbox have zero presence. MS cut a deal with them to provide their online infrastructure in exchange for select Nintendo titles to appear on their platform. Nintendo get an online infrastructure that wasn’t designed in 1987.

Sony, the market leader in the US and Europe is excluded.

Yes or no?

There’s nothing anti competitive about that.

 

[Bernardougf]

Now I understand why Jez is buying a PS5 and DarkMage619 is MIA.

Edit: actually maybe the latter is here afterall...

Is like an Olympic 4 x 400m ... you run pass the stick to another and than is his time to run ... but not matter what the message is still being delivered

 

[ZehDon]

A company that has more than enough cash for pay raises. My small ass company can do it, why can’t the trillion $ company?

You don't get to be a trillion dollar company by paying people fairly. If they're not at least matching inflation, they've also just handed each of their employees a pay reduction.

no raises for Jezz, Tim, Colt and Tom

 

[reinking]

Those Sting concerts don't pay for themselves

Don't get no
Don't get no
Don't get no raise this year....

 

[feynoob]

Nintendo don't have 1987 network infrastructure ffs.

They are stuck in the past.

 

[freefornow]

Really hoping that the EU release their decision on the 15th (yes or no).
Need a hit of Lulu bad!

 

[Dick Jones]

Don't get no
Don't get no
Don't get no raise this year....

Roxanne
You have to put on the red light
Pay increase days are over
You have to sell your body to the night
Roxanne
You have to wear that dress tonight
Walk the streets for money
We don't care if it's wrong or if it's right

 

[feynoob]

What if MS cut a deal with Nintendo to provide their online / cloud gaming, and select Nintendo games appeared on Xbox.

Is that unfair?

If Sony and Nintendo merge, Xbox would be dead due to day1 PC. Wont matter if they put their games on Xbox, nobody would buy Xbox. That is why monopoly is bad.

Sony might be a market leader, but nintendo and Xbox exist to stop their domnance. On other hand, no one can stop MS from Cloud dominance, as there is truly no competition in that spectrum.
Geforce only has B2B mode, meaning no content from them and users would have to spend money to buy those content. Amazon luna sucks badly. Sony infrastructure is garbage as hell and doesnt exist on other streaming avenue.

 

[Ogbert]

There’s nothing anti competitive about that.

You could make a damn good argument that it might be though, not least on a collusion point.

I was being purposefully daft, but only in response to facetious comments about other potential monopolies.

MS are getting stung on the basic anti-trust principle of trying to form a position of dominance in an emerging market. What’s unusual about this particular scenario is that it’s a acquisition in an area where they are *not* dominant that is raising concerns. Usually it’s a move from a position of dominance to maintain that status (the original MS antitrust cases).

My only gentle point is that MS can make concessions to see the deal get approved. Obviously they might not want to, as they might choose to maintain their bullish stance on the cloud.

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

I personally think the deal is very, very likely to go through.

I’m going to be *that guy* on the internet, as regulatory competition law is my day job. That said, I only know a little about the legal niceties of video game publishing/development and absolutely zero about cloud gaming. So it’s an informed opinion, but still only an opinion.

But I do understand how the European Commission and domestic regulators approach cases and the very simple fact is the MS and Xbox are a minority entity within this market. They would never block an acquisition on strict IP points.

Of course, that raises the cloud point. I certainly do not pretend to know the complexities at play, but as this is a forward looking concern, MS could easily make the necessary concessions to see the deal bundled over the line.

It will get done.

Keep fucking that chicken, my man.

 

[Ogbert]

Keep fucking that chicken, my man.

She has a name, thank you very much.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

They aren't being punished for producing the best version of a service. They're being told they can't buy up the largest third-party publishers in order to foreclose future competition. They're still free to expand and enhance cloud gaming.

yep I don't get how this is that hard to understand specially because activision, like bethesda, already is releasing everything they do on xbox.

The acquisition has thus no value from a content perspective.

 

[Baki]

This is the company that wants to pay $69 billion for Activision Blizzard King:




I guess the money for raises is all tied up in this acquisition.

MS employees are amongst the highest paid in the industry. This news gets the world's smallest violin from me. If they want higher pay, they can try to find another job, but I doubt they'll find any jobs that provide the salary and work-life balance that a MS job provides.

 

[IFireflyl]

MS employees are amongst the highest paid in the industry. This news gets the world's smallest violin from me. If they want higher pay, they can try to find another job, but I doubt they'll find any jobs that provide the salary and work-life balance that a MS job provides.

I don't have a strong opinion either way. I just wanted to show the hypocrisy of blaming the economy when they are trying to acquire Activision Blizzard King for $69 billion. They could give everyone in the company a $5,000 raise for less than $750 million. And they profited $17 billion last quarter (or some ridiculous number like that).

 

[feynoob]

The day that EU approves this deal