• 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)

Do you believe the deal will be approved?


  • Total voters
    886
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Lasha

Member
The perspective that most of what the 97% of gaming (smartphones, jigsaw on PC, Tetris, etc) has no bearing on the dangers and anti-competitive shenanigans of the acquisition of ATVIs high-end console gaming catalogue of games being bought by Microsoft.

The regulators already concluded that the catalog was not a concern for the high-end console market. The CMA objected based on the cloud market which is a different product offering.
 

Topher

Identifies as young
Confidently ignorant is a bad look. All streaming boils down to "remote desktop applications optimized for latency". I've played COD streaming over parsec from both my home and AWS. Your accusation should be satisfied.

The only accusation I've made here is that your experience is anecdotal. Not sure what you think I'm "confidently ignorant" about. I didn't say you were wrong in what you experienced, now did I?
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It's not about today, you know this. It's about in 10 years.

Especially when today owns 70% of cloud infrastructure in the word.

Making a decision now based on a hypothetical 10 years later, when we don't know what state the gaming industry will be in, is kind of dumb. Look at Stadia, all that promise and what happened.

Additionally, the CMA can use the same justification about "they have cloud monopoly" to deny any future acquisitions even if they're a smaller studio while OK-ing acquisitions from other platform holders because they might not have a similar cloud infrastructure.

I'm glad at least one more major regulator outright dismissed it so there's more conversation on the subject.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Making a decision now based on a hypothetical 10 years later
It truly is a script.
New Girl Facepalm GIF by HULU
 

PaintTinJr

Member
That may be a point of discussion but EU's main concern was cloud and CMA blocked for the reason of cloud, the '1 to 3 %' market is the focal point here.
It is completely out of context when all the opposition and concern against the deal is from a segment effected that is less than 20% of all gaming revenue in the gaming market. 1-3% versus 15-20% isn't quite as insignificant and small, especially when devices like potato PC and Switch are in that market share too., so emerging Cloud in relative terms is maybe as much as 5-10% already compared to high-end console gaming.
 
Last edited:

Lasha

Member
The only accusation I've made here is that your experience is anecdotal. Not sure what you think I'm "confidently ignorant" about. I didn't say you were wrong in what you experienced, now did I?

Have you tried to play any FPS on GeForce Now, Stadia, moonlight, or parsec? Or is your opinion purely hypothetical? GeForce now has a free tier in most regions. Why don't you fire up a game in competitive mode (in glorious 720p) and see the impact of input lag for yourself? The tech isn't suited for games like COD.
 

sainraja

Member
Making a decision now based on a hypothetical 10 years later, when we don't know what state the gaming industry will be in, is kind of dumb. Look at Stadia, all that promise and what happened.

Additionally, the CMA can use the same justification about "they have cloud monopoly" to deny any future acquisitions even if they're a smaller studio while OK-ing acquisitions from other platform holders because they might not have a similar cloud infrastructure.

I'm glad at least one more major regulator outright dismissed it so there's more conversation on the subject.
If they only have to look at the market as it is today, what are they regulating? (in the market, as it is today, MS does not own Activision btw).
Why should the impact of the acquisition from now to 10 years later not matter?
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
If they only have to look at the market as it is today, what are they regulating? (in the market, as it is today, MS does not own Activision btw). lol
Why should the impact of the acquisition from now to 10 years later not matter?
Exactly. Intellectually dishonest and being purposely obtuse repeating the scripted lines ala Sage and Mage, wayment.... Sage... Mage.... hmmmm
Pulp Fiction Thinking GIF
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
If they only have to look at the market as it is today, what are they regulating? (in the market, as it is today, MS does not own Activision btw).
Why should the impact of the acquisition from now to 10 years later not matter?

You have different regulatory bodies coming to different outcomes about the perceived impact of the acquisition in 10 years so it's not like it's a unanimous or cut-and-dry outlook either.
 

sainraja

Member
You have different regulatory bodies coming to different outcomes about the perceived impact of the acquisition in 10 years so it's not like it's a unanimous or cut-and-dry outlook either.
From what I have understood so far, EC didn't disagree with what the CMA said about the cloud concern; they just went with the proposed remedies, which the CMA didn't go for.
 
Last edited:

PaintTinJr

Member
The regulators already concluded that the catalog was not a concern for the high-end console market. The CMA objected based on the cloud market which is a different product offering.
I'm not saying it was, I'm saying that the impact in cloud of the ATVI catalogue is against the same high-end console market context. not the 85% of people playing Freecell, Minesweeper, angry birds etc on their smartphone, and the 1-3% figure shows her lack of knowledge to contextualise the issue in a meaninful way for the consumers most impacted by the proposed acquisition - which is supposed to be the job she is doing.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
You have different regulatory bodies coming to different outcomes about the perceived impact of the acquisition in 10 years so it's not like it's a unanimous or cut-and-dry outlook either.
They did not come to a different outcome on that, like at all. Just different decisions/remedies. They both literally agreed with one another on the state of the market in 10 years, just one chose the block path, the other chose the potential fine path, something the EU has been notorious for over the years. Free money at the expense of the consumers and markets.

But don't you worry, they will force a USB-C charger and maybe a sideload Trojan Horse. Those are major market wins for the consumer. /s
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
They did not come to a different outcome on that, like at all. Just different decisions/remedies. They both literally agreed with one another on the state of the market in 10 years, just one chose the block path, the other chose the potential fine path, something the EU has been notorious for over the years. Free money at the expense of the consumers and markets.

Different outcome as in one was satisfied with the proposed remedies and one wasn't. (for now)
 
Last edited:

Topher

Identifies as young
Have you tried to play any FPS on GeForce Now, Stadia, moonlight, or parsec? Or is your opinion purely hypothetical? GeForce now has a free tier in most regions. Why don't you fire up a game in competitive mode (in glorious 720p) and see the impact of input lag for yourself? The tech isn't suited for games like COD.

I didn't express an opinion, hypothetical or otherwise. But yes, I've played Halo Infinite on xCloud and found it lacking. That is also anecdotal.
 

Lasha

Member
I didn't express an opinion, hypothetical or otherwise. But yes, I've played Halo Infinite on xCloud and found it lacking. That is also anecdotal.

I could explain the physics of it to you but you would probably call my math anecdotal. I'll stick with confidently ignorant and let you be on your way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom