Support NeoGAF

[demigod]

Isn't that crazy twitter chick part of ABK or something? A shareholder maybe?

Can her actions be construed as something detrimental?

3bil is chump change for ms. They are not going to risk their relationship with ABK. They need ABK on their consoles more than ABK needs them.

 

[THE DUCK]

Honestly, that does not matter.

It doesn't because there is no separate subscription service for xCloud. It's just Game Pass. So what else could the CMA use? If xCloud and Game Pass were separate subscription services, then MS could use this point.

It's like saying, "what if only 20% of Game Pass Ultimate users actually download the games they get every month?"

We can't say that Game Pass only has 5 million users (25M * 20%) because the rest of the 80% does not download games.

They could use some measure of common sense, practicality, or even use polling. They could have asked ms for numbers on how many users, how often use the service vs total numbers that have tried it. They act like cloud gaming will replace regular gaming and yet all signs point to that NOT happening at all. (Recent failures of other huge companies, slow actual growth)
So what if ms owns all of cloud gaming if it's only 5% of the whole industry.

Let's face it, the cloud gaming portion of gamepass is the weakest/smallest part of the package. I bet if you ended cloud gaming tommorow most gamepass subs would continue, if you instead ended the games and just left cloud gaming, you'd be left with hardly any subs.

 

[Heisenberg007]

They could use some measure of common sense, practicality, or even use polling. They could have asked ms for numbers on how many users, how often use the service vs total numbers that have tried it. They act like cloud gaming will replace regular gaming and yet all signs point to that NOT happening at all. (Recent failures of other huge companies, slow actual growth)
So what if ms owns all of cloud gaming if it's only 5% of the whole industry.

Let's face it, the cloud gaming portion of gamepass is the weakest/smallest part of the package. I bet if you ended cloud gaming tommorow most gamepass subs would continue, if you instead ended the games and just left cloud gaming, you'd be left with hardly any subs.

There are 3 points that are important to mention here:

1. "So what if ms owns all of cloud gaming if it's only 5% of the whole industry." >>
   1. You're assuming that Cloud gaming is a part of the current console gaming industry. That's not the case, however. It was already established that Cloud gaming is a separate market, just as console gaming is. So Cloud gaming is not 5% of another industry. It is 100% of its own industry, and Microsoft has a 70% market share of that industry, which is expected to grow YoY.
2. "They act like cloud gaming will replace regular gaming and yet all signs point to that NOT happening at all." >>
   1. The CMA posted a big section -- with input from third-parties as well as data from Microsoft's internal strategy documents -- that showed how fast Cloud gaming is growing and how it's expected to become a huge part in the very near future.
3. "They could have asked ms for numbers on how many users, how often use the service vs total numbers that have tried it." >>
   1. Microsoft also already declared those numbers, i.e., 20 million people use or have used xCloud.

 

[MasterCornholio]

There are 3 points that are important to mention here:

1. "So what if ms owns all of cloud gaming if it's only 5% of the whole industry.">>
   1. You're assuming that Cloud gaming is a part of the current console gaming industry. That's not the case, however. It was already established that Cloud gaming is a separate market, just as console gaming is. So Cloud gaming is not 5% of another industry. It is 100% of its own industry, and Microsoft has a 70% market share of that industry, which is expected to grow YoY.
2. "They act like cloud gaming will replace regular gaming and yet all signs point to that NOT happening at all.">>
   1. The CMA posted a big section -- with input from third-parties as well as data from Microsoft's internal strategy documents -- that showed how fast Cloud gaming is growing and how it's expected to become a huge part in the very near future.
3. "They could have asked ms for numbers on how many users, how often use the service vs total numbers that have tried it.">>
   1. Microsoft also already declared those numbers, i.e., 20 million people use or have used xCloud.

Yep that's how I understand it.

People keep bringing up consoles but they are not even part of the CMAs final decision. That argument was eliminated a while ago with recognition of their math error and coming to conclusion that it wouldn't impact the console market that much.

Its the cloud where they are making their argument because its a different market.

 

[Astray]

Honestly, that does not matter.

It doesn't because there is no separate subscription service for xCloud. It's just Game Pass. So what else could the CMA use? If xCloud and Game Pass were separate subscription services, then MS could use this point.

It's like saying, "what if only 20% of Game Pass Ultimate users actually download the games they get every month?"

We can't say that Game Pass only has 5 million users (25M * 20%) because the rest of the 80% does not download games.

Microsoft pushing all those loopholes for cheap Gamepass Ultimate instead of regular GP is really biting them in the ass huh?

 

[THE DUCK]

There are 3 points that are important to mention here:

1. "So what if ms owns all of cloud gaming if it's only 5% of the whole industry.">>
   1. You're assuming that Cloud gaming is a part of the current console gaming industry. That's not the case, however. It was already established that Cloud gaming is a separate market, just as console gaming is. So Cloud gaming is not 5% of another industry. It is 100% of its own industry, and Microsoft has a 70% market share of that industry, which is expected to grow YoY.
2. "They act like cloud gaming will replace regular gaming and yet all signs point to that NOT happening at all.">>
   1. The CMA posted a big section -- with input from third-parties as well as data from Microsoft's internal strategy documents -- that showed how fast Cloud gaming is growing and how it's expected to become a huge part in the very near future.
3. "They could have asked ms for numbers on how many users, how often use the service vs total numbers that have tried it.">>
   1. Microsoft also already declared those numbers, i.e., 20 million people use or have used xCloud.

1. I don't know how you segment it with any sort of sense. It's just another form of gaming. It's like taking away a place that specializes in tacos from fast food. It's still part of the fast food industry.
But lets go with taking it away, why does buying a game company that makes 99% from it's revenue from "not cloud gaming" matter? Either it's separate or it's not, you can't have it both ways.

2. It may be "growing" and expected to be larger, but they have been saying that for many years. Also the wording used there is very telling, cloud gaming to become a huge part......part of what? The gaming industry? Then include the whole industry.

3. 20 million used is useless, it's like 20 billion served at McDonalds, doesn't tell you anything about today or this month or this year. Talk to be about dollars spent per day, per month, per year, specifically on cloud gaming.
The number is way smaller than it's being made out to be.

 

[Heisenberg007]

1. I don't know how you segment it with any sort of sense. It's just another form of gaming. It's like taking away a place that specializes in tacos from fast food. It's still part of the fast food industry.
But lets go with taking it away, why does buying a game company that makes 99% from it's revenue from "not cloud gaming" matter? Either it's separate or it's not, you can't have it both ways.

2. It may be "growing" and expected to be larger, but they have been saying that for many years. Also the wording used there is very telling, cloud gaming to become a huge part......part of what? The gaming industry? Then include the whole industry.

3. 20 million used is useless, it's like 20 billion served at McDonalds, doesn't tell you anything about today or this month or this year. Talk to be about dollars spent per day, per month, per year, specifically on cloud gaming.
The number is way smaller than it's being made out to be.

Do you also consider mobile gaming a part of the console gaming?

 

[THE DUCK]

Do you also consider mobile gaming a part of the console gaming?

It's part of the gaming industry. By the way, is the switch console or a handheld gaming mobile gaming device? Who decides? You could make the case for either.
Is anyone blocking Nintendo from buying any developers because they have 98% of the "portable console gaming" market?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

1. I don't know how you segment it with any sort of sense. It's just another form of gaming. It's like taking away a place that specializes in tacos from fast food. It's still part of the fast food industry.
But lets go with taking it away, why does buying a game company that makes 99% from it's revenue from "not cloud gaming" matter? Either it's separate or it's not, you can't have it both ways.

2. It may be "growing" and expected to be larger, but they have been saying that for many years. Also the wording used there is very telling, cloud gaming to become a huge part......part of what? The gaming industry? Then include the whole industry.

3. 20 million used is useless, it's like 20 billion served at McDonalds, doesn't tell you anything about today or this month or this year. Talk to be about dollars spent per day, per month, per year, specifically on cloud gaming.
The number is way smaller than it's being made out to be.

Your problem here is regardless of the validity of your arguments, you are contradicting what MS themselves have been saying. The CMA ruled based on their evaluation of MS's own statements about the cloud and the gaming market. Either MS is full of shit and cannot be trusted, in which case the CMA is justified in ruling against them for lying, or MS is truthful and they do have a high dominance in cloud already, in which case the CMA is justified in ruling against them for being a monopoly already. So, which is it?

 

[Heisenberg007]

It's part of the gaming industry. By the way, is the switch console or a handheld gaming mobile gaming device? Who decides? You could make the case for either.
Is anyone blocking Nintendo from buying any developers because they have 98% of the "portable console gaming" market?

Yes, but it's not part of the console gaming market, right?

It's the same with Cloud gaming.

Console, Mobile, and Cloud, are all different markets with different dominating players and market shares.

 

[Astray]

Your problem here is regardless of the validity of your arguments, you are contradicting what MS themselves have been saying. The CMA ruled based on their evaluation of MS's own statements about the cloud and the gaming market. Either MS is full of shit and cannot be trusted, in which case the CMA is justified in ruling against them for lying, or MS is truthful and they do have a high dominance in cloud already, in which case the CMA is justified in ruling against them for being a monopoly already. So, which is it?

Not just statements, internal communications that include emails, board meeting notes, internal reports.

There's a reason Spencer was crowing about Nintendo and Sony being not as well positioned as they are for cloud.

 

[THE DUCK]

Your problem here is regardless of the validity of your arguments, you are contradicting what MS themselves have been saying. The CMA ruled based on their evaluation of MS's own statements about the cloud and the gaming market. Either MS is full of shit and cannot be trusted, in which case the CMA is justified in ruling against them for lying, or MS is truthful and they do have a high dominance in cloud already, in which case the CMA is justified in ruling against them for being a monopoly already. So, which is it?

So if MS has dominance in this tiny market, which you are segmenting (or they are), how does Activision fit into this. By all accounts this is a separate market that Activision has a very small role in. Exactly how much cloud gaming knowhow and market share does activivision hold currently?

 

[THE DUCK]

Yes, but it's not part of the console gaming market, right?

It's the same with Cloud gaming.

Console, Mobile, and Cloud, are all different markets with different dominating players and market shares.

Ok lets run with that, it's completely separate, as in my post to unknown soldier, how much market share and cloud gaming tech does Activison currently hold of the cloud gaming market? 1%? None? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Ar¢tos]

.

It's part of the gaming industry. By the way, is the switch console or a handheld gaming mobile gaming device? Who decides? You could make the case for either.
Is anyone blocking Nintendo from buying any developers because they have 98% of the "portable console gaming" market?

People play games for fun, should we dissolve the cloud gaming percentage MS owns in the WHOLE of the entertainment industry too (cinema, theater, music, etc)?
That way cloud gaming represents only 1% of the entertainment market and, as such, MS will never be a monopoly threat!

 

[Heisenberg007]

Ok lets run with that, it's completely separate, as in my post to unknown soldier, how much market share and cloud gaming tech does Activison currently hold of the cloud gaming market? 1%? None? You can't have it both ways.

They may have 0%, but what does it matter?

Microsoft is acquiring Activision, and Activision will no longer exist after that. So Microsoft's share will need to be analyzed, and that's 70%.

 

[THE DUCK]

.
People play games for fun, should we dissolve the cloud gaming percentage MS owns in the WHOLE of the entertainment industry too (cinema, theater, music, etc)?
That way cloud gaming represents only 1% of the entertainment market and, as such, MS will never be a monopoly threat!

Disingenuous arguement at best, it's clear that cloud gaming should be included in the "gaming" market, just like any other part of it. And they are interdependent in the case of ms, not isolated.

 

[THE DUCK]

They may have 0%, but what does it matter?

Microsoft is acquiring Activision, and Activision will no longer exist after that. So Microsoft's share will need to be analyzed, and that's 70%.

So basically you just confirmed that acquiring Activision doesn't change the cloud gaming market at all, therefore there is zero reason to block it.

 

[PropellerEar]

So basically you just confirmed that acquiring Activision doesn't change the cloud gaming market at all, therefore there is zero reason to block it.

 

[PropellerEar]

Disingenuous arguement at best, it's clear that cloud gaming should be included in the "gaming" market, just like any other part of it. And they are interdependent in the case of ms, not isolated.

 

[Astray]

So if MS has dominance in this tiny market, which you are segmenting (or they are), how does Activision fit into this. By all accounts this is a separate market that Activision has a very small role in. Exactly how much cloud gaming knowhow and market share does activivision hold currently?

If they lock up ABK content behind needing to use some sort of Microsoft service or product (be it Azure or Windows), then that's indeed anticompetitive.

Google and Amazon for example won't be using Azure. I think it's only a matter of time before Apple joins this race as well, there's a reason they told MS to fuck off and didn't allow them to have a native xCloud app on iOS devices.

 

[THE DUCK]

If they lock up ABK content behind needing to use some sort of Microsoft service or product (be it Azure or Windows), then that's indeed anticompetitive.

Google and Amazon for example won't be using Azure. I think it's only a matter of time before Apple joins this race as well, there's a reason they told MS to fuck off and didn't allow them to have a native xCloud app on iOS devices.

That doesn't change the argument that they are interdependent, if you are saying that MS controlling that content will affect the cloud market, sure, in the end it will. But two things, you can't isolate that and then say the overall game market has no bearing on "cloud gaming" (since it has a profound affect) and also that the cloud market really even matters in the end. Either context matters or it doesn't.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Geforce Now uses Windows too. So they are a double customer to MS.

And add in that Microsoft would own even more IP that those services would use to attract customers and would likely be able to dictate the terms of the market to a greater extent - it's very very murky.

Cloud is small now, but we know Microsoft's goal is to dominate in that area. They, by a huge extent, already have the pieces in place to do that and the ABK deal would further strengthen their hand and weaken current competitors and make it borderline impossible for new competitors to take root.

 

[DForce]

So if MS has dominance in this tiny market, which you are segmenting (or they are), how does Activision fit into this. By all accounts this is a separate market that Activision has a very small role in. Exactly how much cloud gaming knowhow and market share does activivision hold currently?

How?

Microsoft will have Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, and Diablo 5 on Game Pass. Games where you typically pay yearly/monthly for being added to a subscription service. They're not small titles, but big multiplayer games that will have people subscribing to the service for years.

That would make it harder for others to compete in the cloud market.


Netflix and Amazon are getting into cloud gaming. They're going to have an easier chance to compete against Sony/MS in the cloud market in comparison to the console market. Widening the gap is just going to make it harder.

 

[ToadMan]

They could use some measure of common sense, practicality, or even use polling. They could have asked ms for numbers on how many users, how often use the service vs total numbers that have tried it.

The CMA isn't focused on numbers today for this SLC.

They are making decisions based on future potential outcomes over years - potential outcomes they have investigated and assessed using MS and ABKs own internal projections amongst others.

 

[Astray]

That doesn't change the argument that they are interdependent, if you are saying that MS controlling that content will affect the cloud market, sure, in the end it will. But two things, you can't isolate that and then say the overall game market has no bearing on "cloud gaming" (since it has a profound affect) and also that the cloud market really even matters in the end. Either context matters or it doesn't.

You and I think Cloud gaming doesn't matter because you and I only have our own empirical perspectives on it, the CMA however used the internal analytics and growth projection reports of ABK and MS. The difference in info available between us forum posters and a government regulator is insane and you shouldn't discount it at all.

What was the service that was mysteriously absent from all the 10 year deals Microsoft was waving around? Amazon Luna.

Why? Because AWS is fucking massive (top 2 cloud infrastructure provider in the world, when AWS experiences outages, the entire internet feels it), that means that Amazon is one of the few companies that are capable of building a compelling cloud gaming solution, and this makes them a party that Microsoft doesn't want to help even with a temporary deal.

That alone tells you that the CMA sussed Spencer and co out perfectly.

 

[feynoob]

They could use some measure of common sense, practicality, or even use polling. They could have asked ms for numbers on how many users, how often use the service vs total numbers that have tried it. They act like cloud gaming will replace regular gaming and yet all signs point to that NOT happening at all. (Recent failures of other huge companies, slow actual growth)
So what if ms owns all of cloud gaming if it's only 5% of the whole industry.

Let's face it, the cloud gaming portion of gamepass is the weakest/smallest part of the package. I bet if you ended cloud gaming tommorow most gamepass subs would continue, if you instead ended the games and just left cloud gaming, you'd be left with hardly any subs.

I have been playing GeForce these past 2 days, and it's close to a high end PC.
And that is me playing New world on max settings, which is an MMoprg. Meaning it needs internet connection all time.

Cloud gaming will be the future, just from this experience alone. It breaks a lot of barriers and don't have to spend money buying this high end computer.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

CMA is trying to stop a future where ABK content is locked behind a single/strong cloud gaming provider.

Despite not knowing how cloud gaming will develop, how important ABK content will be to cloud gaming, what kind of cloud gaming models will emerge, if ABK will even want their content on any cloud gaming services or which services.

Their decision based largely on uncertainty and assumptions does stop a hypothetical future where Microsoft in 10 years time restricts cloud gaming access to their service, but it also keeps these smaller cloud gaming providers from having access right now, in a time where the CMA says cloud gaming is having explosive growth.

A lot of assumptions being made based on an uncertain future in the hopes that specific outcomes don't come to pass, outcomes that could be remedied with a remedy package, something the CMA doesn't want to do because it would require their involvement.

The decision to block may also disincentive investment into this growing nascent market. All to stop a hypothetical future that doesn't have much if any evidence to support.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

It's part of the gaming industry. By the way, is the switch console or a handheld gaming mobile gaming device? Who decides? You could make the case for either.
Is anyone blocking Nintendo from buying any developers because they have 98% of the "portable console gaming" market?

Portable console gaming isn't a nascent industry, it's been around for decades and it's largely been eclipsed by mobile gaming.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Disingenuous arguement at best, it's clear that cloud gaming should be included in the "gaming" market, just like any other part of it. And they are interdependent in the case of ms, not isolated.

Cloud gaming doesn't require consoles or even pcs to operate, so why should it be bundled with the console market?
Anyone with a TV nowadays is a potential cloud gaming client.

 

[THE DUCK]

How?

Microsoft will have Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, and Diablo 5 on Game Pass. Games where you typically pay yearly/monthly for being added to a subscription service. They're not small titles, but big multiplayer games that will have people subscribing to the service for years.

That would make it harder for others to compete in the cloud market.


Netflix and Amazon are getting into cloud gaming. They're going to have an easier chance to compete against Sony/MS in the cloud market in comparison to the console market. Widening the gap is just going to make it harder.

But they are the ones saying traditional gaming has no part in this, if that's the case, currently Activision has no cloud gaming presence of substance.
You can't block an acquisition because their product "might" or "probably" will become part of anther revenue stream, that's kind of crazy.
I can't think of any other large acquisitions that are being blocked by companies potentially moving into other areas.

 

[Astray]

CMA is trying to stop a future where ABK content is locked behind a single/strong cloud gaming provider.

True.

Despite not knowing how cloud gaming will develop,

True to an extent, they want to preserve its future and not have it be pre-monopolized.

how important ABK content will be to cloud gaming

ABK content is important to everyone, they are the largest independent publisher for a reason.

what kind of cloud gaming models will emerge

Which is great for consumers, maybe someone comes up with a better service than xCloud, that service deserves to not be kneecapped by not having access to powerful content or having to pay through the nose for Azure/Windows licensing.

if ABK will even want their content on any cloud gaming services or which services.

Literally mentioned in the final report that ABK does in fact retain interest in putting their content on cloud services. The only issue is them wanting to maximize terms in their favor.

Their decision based largely on uncertainty and assumptions does stop a hypothetical future where Microsoft in 10 years time restricts cloud gaming access to their service

It's not assumptions when Microsoft only went to 10 year deals because of regulators (in fact it was literally called out in the final CMA report), what they initially wanted was to lock up ABK asap. Also they have internal communications from ABK and MSFT that likely prove their point, they just have to redact it for plebs like you and me.

A lot of assumptions being made based on an uncertain future in the hopes that specific outcomes don't come to pass, outcomes that could be remedied with a remedy package, something the CMA doesn't want to do because it would require their involvement.

The gist of what they are saying is, "when it comes to Cloud gaming, you have shown that you won't behave unless I am always watching, and I don't want to expend the time and energy into watching you at all times", and it's pretty reasonable imo.

Microsoft rejected the idea of splitting off COD, so they get what they get.

The decision to block may also disincentive investment into this growing nascent market. All to stop a hypothetical future that doesn't have much if any evidence to support.

Literally the opposite, we are already seeing Amazon Luna trying to get into the UK market, and there will be more to follow, the market is still open for anyone who wants to get in without being enslaved to Microsoft's terms. Be it Sony, Apple, Meta, Nintendo etc.

 

[THE DUCK]

The CMA isn't focused on numbers today for this SLC.

They are making decisions based on future potential outcomes over years - potential outcomes they have investigated and assessed using MS and ABKs own internal projections amongst others.

If you go buy future outcomes then, Sony should be stopped from buying any other software companies (control of console software market) .......ditto on Nintendo (control of portable console software market). And no companies to Meta/facebook.
If we are going to segment markets and apply arbitrary rules based on conjecture it should be applied to all individual areas.

 

[feynoob]

CMA is trying to stop a future where ABK content is locked behind a single/strong cloud gaming provider.

Despite not knowing how cloud gaming will develop, how important ABK content will be to cloud gaming, what kind of cloud gaming models will emerge, if ABK will even want their content on any cloud gaming services or which services.

Their decision based largely on uncertainty and assumptions does stop a hypothetical future where Microsoft in 10 years time restricts cloud gaming access to their service, but it also keeps these smaller cloud gaming providers from having access right now, in a time where the CMA says cloud gaming is having explosive growth.

A lot of assumptions being made based on an uncertain future in the hopes that specific outcomes don't come to pass, outcomes that could be remedied with a remedy package, something the CMA doesn't want to do because it would require their involvement.

The decision to block may also disincentive investment into this growing nascent market. All to stop a hypothetical future that doesn't have much if any evidence to support.

If MS bought them, there will be a time limit to houw much they can use their content.

All you need to look is Disney with marvel and star wars content. Marvel has huge amount of collections and star wars too. The only difference is that cloud market is huge now.

Now cloud gaming is small. MS already owns Bethesda. Now add activision content, and you are holding back cloud gaming.

You as consumer don't see the problem here. But for cloud providers it's a huge problem. Even though they get huge benefits right now, in 10 years it won't be the same.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.di...lishers-games-removed-nvidia-geforce-now/?amp

https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/...ft-xbox-game-studios-warner-bros-remove-games

That is what happened to GeForce. Who says it won't happen again.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

So if MS has dominance in this tiny market, which you are segmenting (or they are), how does Activision fit into this. By all accounts this is a separate market that Activision has a very small role in. Exactly how much cloud gaming knowhow and market share does activivision hold currently?

It's tiny now, but with technological advancement, it's clear to almost everyone that this could be the primary way in which people game in the near future.

Buying the largest 3rd party console game publisher in the industry allows them to leverage that power into what they already have which is a massive amount of ownership in the ENTIRE cloud gaming chain.

No one blocked Google and Apple when it came to mobile and now they are both out of control. This is the lesson regulators have learned here.

You look at the advent of Netflix and it's clear that gaming isn't going to rely on a set-top box forever. It's already gone digital, the last piece here is to eschew the box altogether. The biggest problem they need to resolve is latency and bandwidth and low latency technology advances all the time.

Once the box is eschewed, console gaming and PC gaming BOTH disappear.

What does Microsoft own?

Windows and Azure.

If they're able to create a monopoly in which all games are developed on Windows (which for PC they basically already are) AND stream exclusively on Azure via xCloud they will have entire control over pricing.

Activision plays into that because if xCloud is allowed to dominate cloud from day 1, it'll be difficult for 3rd party developers to not support xCloud and GamePass and by that extension, anyone trying to create a service is going to find it difficult to find developer support outside of xCloud and Azure, much like right now it's almost impossible to get developer support for OSes other than iOS or Android, even Microsoft with their vast resources weren't able to get developers to support Windows Mobile.

It's bad for consumers for Microsoft to utilize ABK to strong-arm the cloud market before it even gets off the ground.

What we're going to see is tvs package with controllers or at least be compatible with them via bluetooth (first we'll see dongles like the firestick) and we're already seeing controllers like the backbone to convert mobile phones into full gaming systems.

 

[feynoob]

But they are the ones saying traditional gaming has no part in this, if that's the case, currently Activision has no cloud gaming presence of substance.
You can't block an acquisition because their product "might" or "probably" will become part of anther revenue stream, that's kind of crazy.
I can't think of any other large acquisitions that are being blocked by companies potentially moving into other areas.

Because MS doesn't own them.
These cloud gaming have the chance to get those content any time, compared to MS buying them.

Without regulators concerns, MS wouldn't have had to give 10 years contract to these cloud companies.

The worst part however is the revenue sharing. MS is keeping 100% of revenue from cloud gaming (PSNow).

 

[THE DUCK]

You and I think Cloud gaming doesn't matter because you and I only have our own empirical perspectives on it, the CMA however used the internal analytics and growth projection reports of ABK and MS. The difference in info available between us forum posters and a government regulator is insane and you shouldn't discount it at all.

What was the service that was mysteriously absent from all the 10 year deals Microsoft was waving around? Amazon Luna.

Why? Because AWS is fucking massive (top 2 cloud infrastructure provider in the world, when AWS experiences outages, the entire internet feels it), that means that Amazon is one of the few companies that are capable of building a compelling cloud gaming solution, and this makes them a party that Microsoft doesn't want to help even with a temporary deal.

That alone tells you that the CMA sussed Spencer and co out perfectly.

Admittedly there is a lot hidden, but how many people are out there spending big cash on cloud gaming? Numbers I'm reading are 5-6 Billion by 2024. Video games as a business is at the 400 billon dollar mark. 80 Billion for console sales. That's only 1.5% of the whole market, or 7.5% of the console market. They should be more concerned about the competition taking a larger part of the big pie than blocking MS on something that might happen that only represents a smaller segment.

 

[THE DUCK]

I have been playing GeForce these past 2 days, and it's close to a high end PC.
And that is me playing New world on max settings, which is an MMoprg. Meaning it needs internet connection all time.

Cloud gaming will be the future, just from this experience alone. It breaks a lot of barriers and don't have to spend money buying this high end computer.

If your paying $20 a month for 5 years that's not much different than buying a new pc on credit. And for a lot of people a lag free experience isn't there yet.

 

[feynoob]

If your paying $20 a month for 5 years that's not much different than buying a new pc on credit. And for a lot of people a lag free experience isn't there yet.

It is.
1. You are not paying 1k upfront.
2. You can play GeForce anywhere.
3. You can use GeForce on your smart TV.

These are the advantages of cloud gaming. For 20$ a month, I am getting Superior experience at a fraction cost.

 

[THE DUCK]

Cloud gaming doesn't require consoles or even pcs to operate, so why should it be bundled with the console market?
Anyone with a TV nowadays is a potential cloud gaming client.

Ok so it's part of the overall gaming market, meaning it's about 1% of the gaming market.
You can also run games natively on a TV, a apple TV, and a tablet. Yes anyone is a potential client, but the way tech is going these days you might see an APU in a TV or set top box more often than you will see cloud gaming.
In 10 years a google TV will likely have the same power as a switch. You could also see a hardware company get aggressive with losses and put a powerful set top box in every house for free.

 

[THE DUCK]

Because MS doesn't own them.
These cloud gaming have the chance to get those content any time, compared to MS buying them.

Without regulators concerns, MS wouldn't have had to give 10 years contract to these cloud companies.

The worst part however is the revenue sharing. MS is keeping 100% of revenue from cloud gaming (PSNow).

This argument is weak. Activision could literally move away from this deal and sign a 30 year exclusivity deal with Sony the next day. Or MS. What would regulators do about that?

 

[THE DUCK]

It is.
1. You are not paying 1k upfront.
2. You can play GeForce anywhere.
3. You can use GeForce on your smart TV.

These are the advantages of cloud gaming. For 20$ a month, I am getting Superior experience at a fraction cost.

Not paying 1K up front if I finance and I also get the use of a computer for many other things.
Can play a laptop basically anywhere, or use steam link, or run an hdmi cable to TV.
Can use steam link on my TV. Or Geforce Now still.

As far as superior goes, depends on the connection. Not the case with hardware.

 

[FunkMiller]

If you go buy future outcomes then, Sony should be stopped from buying any other software companies (control of console software market) .......ditto on Nintendo (control of portable console software market). And no companies to Meta/facebook.
If we are going to segment markets and apply arbitrary rules based on conjecture it should be applied to all individual areas.

You're rather forgetting the fact that MS are attempting to purchase not just 'a' software company... they are attempting to purchase the single largest third party contributor to the gaming landscape, that has a massive footprint in console and mobile gaming. Business is never a zero sum game, where the same rules apply to a company, no matter its size. The CMA have blocked this deal because they can see quite clearly the massive and unfair advantage MS would have in the cloud gaming space, if they owned the people responsible for Call Of Duty and Candy Crush, along with a majority of the cloud gaming infrastructure.

This is why, by law, mergers of this size have to be passed by several, international authorities. And the law has done its job in this case.

 

[Astray]

Admittedly there is a lot hidden, but how many people are out there spending big cash on cloud gaming? Numbers I'm reading are 5-6 Billion by 2024. Video games as a business is at the 400 billon dollar mark. 80 Billion for console sales. That's only 1.5% of the whole market, or 7.5% of the console market. They should be more concerned about the competition taking a larger part of the big pie than blocking MS on something that might happen that only represents a smaller segment.

Unless that competition did explicitly illegal things to win said larger piece of the pie, which neither Sony, nor Xbox did during their years on the top of the console market (Nintendo had an antitrust scrap some years ago), then there's no problem.

What they're trying to do here is to prevent future monopolies from happening too soon and breaking the market before it starts, if Microsoft wins the cloud gaming race when it actually starts for real then it likely won't be an issue.

 

[feynoob]

This argument is weak. Activision could literally move away from this deal and sign a 30 year exclusivity deal with Sony the next day. Or MS. What would regulators do about that?

Difference is that MS service would be attractive.

Sony contract on the other hand will bankrupt them. They can't make all activision/blizzard exclusives as that requires insane amount of money.

Not paying 1K up front if I finance and I also get the use of a computer for many other things.
Can play a laptop basically anywhere, or use steam link, or run an hdmi cable to TV.
Can use steam link on my TV. Or Geforce Now still.

As far as superior goes, depends on the connection. Not the case with hardware.

Man, you are getting newer cards as soon as they launch. If your computer gets damaged, you lose all those money. You don't lose that with GeForce now.

 

[MasterCornholio]

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.

 

[feynoob]

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.

Windows pc says hi .

 

[THE DUCK]

You're rather forgetting the fact that MS are attempting to purchase not just 'a' software company... they are attempting to purchase the single largest third party contributor to the gaming landscape, that has a massive footprint in console and mobile gaming. Business is never a zero sum game, where the same rules apply to a company, no matter its size. The CMA have blocked this deal because they can see quite clearly the massive and unfair advantage MS would have in the cloud gaming space, if they owned the people responsible for Call Of Duty and Candy Crush, along with a majority of the cloud gaming infrastructure.

This is why, by law, mergers of this size have to be passed by several, international authorities. And the law has done its job in this case.

If your going to look at the whole picture (which many are saying they are not) then you also have to look at the "unfair" advantage sony has on the console segment and Nintendo on portable consoles. That should be a factor as well.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Windows pc says hi .

Good luck taking care of windows.

 

[THE DUCK]

Unless that competition did explicitly illegal things to win said larger piece of the pie, which neither Sony, nor Xbox did during their years on the top of the console market (Nintendo had an antitrust scrap some years ago), then there's no problem.

What they're trying to do here is to prevent future monopolies from happening too soon and breaking the market before it starts, if Microsoft wins the cloud gaming race when it actually starts for real then it likely won't be an issue.

That's a whole new ball of wax, by that kind of logic meta should be blocked from any vr game company purchases. Has that happened? And what of hybrid handhelds, are Nintendo being blocked on all software company purchases since they have easily of 70% of that market. If your going to apply a policy of preventing monopolies, it should be applied to all areas. Good luck.

 

[feynoob]

Good luck taking care of windows.

MS is the best and worst company at the same time.

Most of my PC windows versions are compatible, but certain parts are shit and very intrusive with their ads.

Glad that they aren't apple though.