Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

No.....just our typical speculation of possibilities. Primary question is what is CMA's angle in all this.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Microsoft seemingly playing hardball with the CMA, my guess is the CMA will probably block again. I only imagine with the deadline extended to October that the appeal will continue or the CMA will accept which would be somewhat suspect but we will see.

The CMA could go either way.
If MS offered nothing of value, and the CMA did not think it would lead to them changing their mind, they would not have asked for the extension either. They were basically going against the law by asking for it. The judge was pissed off and said he might not allow it. The CMA wouldn't have done that for no reason.
The CMA were out of step with the rest of the world, they got the hint that MS would close over them, and they were getting smashed by the government for it.

They might be looking for a way out, and this gives them that. They can say they took MS on and made them change their deal.

 

[Three]

The judge was adamant in the adjournment hearing that this had better be nothing more than coincidence and that what happens in the US should have no bearing on what happens in the UK. Now whether that is truly the case......only the CMA knows. The judge was essentially saying the FTC's outcome shouldn't prompt these actions, but that is different from what they are calling "new evidence" arising from the FTC case.

Adam is right in pointing out that I made a mistake thinking that it was common ground among CAT, the CMA and MS/ABK lawyers. it wasn't. It was only the CAT judge and CMA who pointed out its irrelevance.

what's interesting now is why they are pushing it still in the new submissions. After having found out in front of a CAT judge on the 17th that both CAT and the CMA have no interest in the FTC PI outcome they are still submitting quotes from that outcome and judge Corley as the radical change. It seems they plan to use it if it still ends up in a blocked appeal case again. So they do see a possibility that it may be blocked again and they end up in front of another CAT judge who they hope doesn't agree with this CAT judge.

The July CAT hearing
CAT Judge:

The coincidence between events in the United States, the FTC's failure to obtain an interim injunction and the application here, is unfortunate. It is, I think, common ground that events in the United States are immaterial to Microsoft's and the CMA's application today.

CMA, Bailey:

My instructions are that it was not relevant to that application and there was no sign that this was a real prospect until the moment at which we jointly made this application. Stage 4 is whether there is any other reason why the tribunal shouldn't grant the stay and adjournment. You, sir, identified one possibility. That is the coincidence in timing of the outcome of the FTC's application for a preliminary injunction and then the joint letter that was written, asking for a stay. I can only speak for the CMA of course. Mr Beard will no doubt speak for his client. But so far as the CMA is concerned, the outcome of that first instance decision formed no part of the CMA's thinking. We are squarely focused on the public interest, as you would expect.

MS, Beard

FTC materials, they may be immaterial to the juridical basis for this adjournment. We'd like to stress we don't consider the FTC judgment and those matters generally immaterial but we didn't understand that to be the case.

ABK, Grabiner

The only other point is this, that your Lordship did say and I think my learned friend Mr Bailey did agree, that in relation to the FTC exercise, this was not something that they took into account when making this application or joining us in the application for an adjournment, and that is completely correct. But I want to echo my learned friend Mr Beard's remarks, which is that we say that there are matters in the FTC judgment which are slightly material. If, God forbid, we do have to have a substantive hearing, that's what I wanted to make sure we were clear about. But, my Lord, that's all I wanted to say.

What I've been questioning is why they didn't just go through with the CAT appeal now if they're thinking of that possibility, especially as they were planning to get an extension on the deadline anyway. Could it be they found out that this outcome wasn't going to be favourable to MS (Judge did say hard fought after all) or do they just want to be on good terms with the CMA and divest specifically for future acquisitions?

 

[Three]

So do we think MS will keep fighting when it gets blocked again, or is this it?

Judging by what I've now seen if they do get blocked again they will keep fighting. They have so much money for lawyers that there is no reason why they wouldn't.

 

[Heisenberg007]

What I've been questioning is why they didn't just go through with the CAT appeal now if they're thinking of that possibility, especially as they were planning to get an extension on the deadline anyway. Could it be they found out that this outcome wasn't going to be favourable to MS (Judge did say hard fought after all) or do they just want to be on good terms with the CMA and divest specifically for future acquisitions?

Both I think.

As people here speculated and talked about several times over the last few months how there is a very low chance (%) that CAT will reverse the CMA's decision. So Microsoft was likely going to lose anyway, statistically speaking at least.

We also speculated how the CMA's wordings in their final decision may even block Microsoft's future acquisitions.

This new route gives Microsoft a very, very decent chance of (1) completing this ABK acquisition and (2) paving way for future gaming-related acquisitions.

 

[Three]

Both I think.

As people here speculated and talked about several times over the last few months how there is a very low chance (%) that CAT will reverse the CMA's decision. So Microsoft was likely going to lose anyway, statistically speaking at least.

We also speculated how the CMA's wordings in their final decision may even block Microsoft's future acquisitions.

This new route gives Microsoft a very, very decent chance of (1) completing this ABK acquisition and (2) paving way for future gaming-related acquisitions.

I think GHG was 100% right then that Sony made a bad move after the FTC hearing and could live to regret it in other ways.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I think GHG was 100% right then that Sony made a bad move after the FTC hearing and could live to regret it in other ways.

Although I was of the belief that Sony should not have made a 10-year deal regardless of the outcome and let Microsoft publish the games on their own if they want to, I don't think Sony made a bad move.

I think about it this way:

1. Sony's deal is about console. COD on Sony consoles for 10 years.
2. The FTC based the majority of their arguments around consoles.
3. So when the FTC lost (3 times!), and the CMA apparently folded, Sony signed the console agreement to secure content, knowing the deal is pretty much approved.
4. Sony's agreement, however, will not have anything to do with CMA's approval or blocker. That's because the CMA had already dropped the console SLC. Their concerns are about Cloud, which is not part of Sony's agreement.
5. So the CMA can still block, and Sony's agreement with Microsoft will have 0 bearings on that.

When we look at this way, Sony made a smart move.

If they signed an agreement prior to the FTC case, they would have weakened FTC's case. But they only signed it after the FTC lost already. And Sony's console agreement does not affect CMA's Cloud concerns.

 

[Three]

Although I was of the belief that Sony should not have made a 10-year deal regardless of the outcome and let Microsoft publish the games on their own if they want to, I don't think Sony made a bad move.

I think about it this way:

1. Sony's deal is about console. COD on Sony consoles for 10 years.
2. The FTC based the majority of their arguments around consoles.
3. So when the FTC lost (3 times!), and the CMA apparently folded, Sony signed the console agreement to secure content, knowing the deal is pretty much approved.
4. Sony's agreement, however, will not have anything to do with CMA's approval or blocker. That's because the CMA had already dropped the console SLC. Their concerns are about Cloud, which is not part of Sony's agreement.
5. So the CMA can still block, and Sony's agreement with Microsoft will have 0 bearings on that.

When we look at this way, Sony made a smart move.

If they signed an agreement prior to the FTC case, they would have weakened FTC's case. But they only signed it after the FTC lost already. And Sony's console agreement does not affect CMA's Cloud concerns.

I'm not sure I agree that Sony's deal would have to be console related only. I believe they were in the past making points/complaints that treated them as a cloud competitor too. You might be right though that the risk of a US loss without the deal might have outweighed everything else and CMA dropping their console concerns they weren't confident enough in a total block of the deal. It could have ended up with no guarantees for console and only guarantees for cloud which wouldn't be good for Sony or Playstation users.

 

[Negotiator101]

The CMA could go either way.
If MS offered nothing of value, and the CMA did not think it would lead to them changing their mind, they would not have asked for the extension either. They were basically going against the law by asking for it. The judge was pissed off and said he might not allow it. The CMA wouldn't have done that for no reason.
The CMA were out of step with the rest of the world, they got the hint that MS would close over them, and they were getting smashed by the government for it.

They might be looking for a way out, and this gives them that. They can say they took MS on and made them change their dedeal.

To be fair I wrote that before finding out Microsoft have indeed come up with a solution that should placate the CMA and get it passed. Yesterday the talk was Microsoft had offered nothing new, anyway its more than likely getting passed now just have to wait.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Judging by what I've now seen if they do get blocked again they will keep fighting. They have so much money for lawyers that there is no reason why they wouldn't.

If they do that, I think they'd be in a far worse situation to fight it. IMO for the judge to say it needs to be a substantially different merger, and then the inquiry group to conclude it isn't, suggests they would have already lost the first appeal, as though the judge takes their action to follow another path as admission that what they were fighting against had credibility that they could have easily lost the appeal.

Microsoft failing to offer enough for the inquiry group will then look like a move, and the judge at that point is probably already half in the CMA argument camp or at a point where he's angry about Microsoft's antics, and then refuse to give them another chance at the JR appeal - with clear evidence the CMA accommodated everything they legally could to help, including entertaining the unusual "special reasons" argument, with Microsoft still failing to heed the CMA advice.

 

[Deleted member 848825]

They'll become a third party publisher.

You'd think ultimately Xbox would love to ditch the Xbox hardware. And long term become solely an app based service installable anywhere and everywhere. Isnt that the the ideal Netflix dream... they could become part of PSN along the lines of EA Play or Ubisoft+ and remain fully integrated with Windows.

 

[Pelta88]

You'd think ultimately Xbox would love to ditch the Xbox hardware. And long term become solely an app based service installable anywhere and everywhere. Isnt that the the ideal Netflix dream... they could become part of PSN along the lines of EA Play or Ubisoft+ and remain fully integrated with Windows.

It's something they've discussed internally, according to their submissions to regulators.

 

[poppabk]

You'd think ultimately Xbox would love to ditch the Xbox hardware. And long term become solely an app based service installable anywhere and everywhere. Isnt that the the ideal Netflix dream... they could become part of PSN along the lines of EA Play or Ubisoft+ and remain fully integrated with Windows.

I think that is what they ultimately want, but with a bigger seat at the table than being just an EA Play.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I think that is what they ultimately want, but with a bigger seat at the table than being just an EA Play.

Considering the IPs they have (or will have after ABK closes), I'd say they are already in a much better position than EA.

 

[Pelta88]

Considering the IPs they have (or will have after ABK closes), I'd say they are already in a much better position than EA.

I disagree. Microsoft's combination of injecting the wider goals of Microsoft into gaming coupled with abysmal management will keep XBOX as a non factor.

 

[GHG]

You'd think ultimately Xbox would love to ditch the Xbox hardware. And long term become solely an app based service installable anywhere and everywhere. Isnt that the the ideal Netflix dream... they could become part of PSN along the lines of EA Play or Ubisoft+ and remain fully integrated with Windows.

It's what they want for sure but the nature of their remaining fanbase has made that impossible for them.

So as it stands the only option is an attempt to eliminate the competition.

 

[Three]

If they do that, I think they'd be in a far worse situation to fight it. IMO for the judge to say it needs to be a substantially different merger, and then the inquiry group to conclude it isn't, suggests they would have already lost the first appeal, as though the judge takes their action to follow another path as admission that what they were fighting against had credibility that they could have easily lost the appeal.

Microsoft failing to offer enough for the inquiry group will then look like a move, and the judge at that point is probably already half in the CMA argument camp or at a point where he's angry about Microsoft's antics, and then refuse to give them another chance at the JR appeal - with clear evidence the CMA accommodated everything they legally could to help, including entertaining the unusual "special reasons" argument, with Microsoft still failing to heed the CMA advice.

I think they expect it wouldn't reach that point but regardless MS/ABK are preparing for it if it did.

At this point MS don't want this blocking future acquisitions had they lost at CAT. Because that's exactly what would have happened if they did. They would have had a verified reason in cloud and possibly MGS to block future acquisitions.

MS will try and divest their cloud, and depending on CMAs strength in the renegotiation maybe even their subscription service. This would cover the 2 remaining issues the CMA had in addition to the console SLC that they dropped. I think the CMA did a poor job on their console SLC though. Bad calculations showing that they could remove it, then to completely drop it based on the same model they had when there was a better one MS were using. Then during the FTC hearing the MS Denali model showed that removal was viable for MS.

So now MS are happy to divest cloud if it means this deal goes through and future ones can go ahead without the console SLC, they probably wouldn't be happy to divest their MGS service though but I'm not sure what will happen there. CMA would be happy to divest cloud but not sure if CMA are happy or not to drop their MGS SLC and in the end they did a poor job defending the console SLC . The incentive was there and they dropped it on the basis that it wasn't.

 

[Pelta88]

So now MS are happy to divest cloud if it means this deal goes through and future ones can go ahead without the console SLC, they probably wouldn't be happy to divest their MGS service though but I'm not sure what will happen there. CMA would be happy to divest cloud but not sure if CMA are happy or not to drop their MGS SLC and in the end they did a poor job defending the console SLC . The incentive was there and they dropped it on the basis that it wasn't.

Cloud is "Microsoft's" strategy. I don't see how they give up any lead and strength in that market for a failing division of Microsoft.

 

[Three]

Cloud is "Microsoft's" strategy. I don't see how they give up any lead and strength in that market for a failing division of Microsoft.

You could be right (though I mean xcloud and not their entire cloud market) . If that's the case that it's Microsoft Gaming's strategy then it would be really interesting to know what the rumoured divestment is. I personally think their subscription is more important to their strategy (through native or cloud) and they see PS as their only competitor.

 

[Pelta88]

You could be right (though I mean xcloud and not their entire cloud market) . If that's the case that it's Microsoft Gaming's strategy then it would be really interesting to know what the rumoured divestment is. I personally think their subscription is more important to their strategy (through native or cloud) and they see PS as their only competitor.

Microsoft has had the opportunity to divest their cloud investment in an effort to close the deal. To date, they've refused to take that route. Which to me means there is broader negative implications to Microsoft as a whole.

I could be wrong. They could give up the clear lead they have in that market in order to get the deal done. But again, they've refused to do so. They started lobbying J Hunt and other UK Politicians and went to the CAT instead of divesting.

 

[adamsapple]

It's what they want for sure but the nature of their remaining fanbase has made that impossible for them.

They've had more than one generation to pivot to that if they wanted to.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I think they expect it wouldn't reach that point but regardless MS/ABK are preparing for it if it did.

At this point MS don't want this blocking future acquisitions had they lost at CAT. Because that's exactly what would have happened if they did. They would have had a verified reason in cloud and possibly MGS to block future acquisitions.

MS will try and divest their cloud, and depending on CMAs strength in the renegotiation maybe even their subscription service. This would cover the 2 remaining issues the CMA had in addition to the console SLC that they dropped. I think the CMA did a poor job on their console SLC though. Bad calculations showing that they could remove it, then to completely drop it based on the same model they had when there was a better one MS were using. Then during the FTC hearing the MS Denali model showed that removal was viable for MS.

So now MS are happy to divest cloud if it means this deal goes through and future ones can go ahead without the console SLC, they probably wouldn't be happy to divest their MGS service though but I'm not sure what will happen there. CMA would be happy to divest cloud but not sure if CMA are happy or not to drop their MGS SLC and in the end they did a poor job defending the console SLC . The incentive was there and they dropped it on the basis that it wasn't.

In the new documents on the CMA website (Request for feedback and Microsoft proposal) it is interesting to see that the CMA are open to wide ranging feedback, including evidence for a console SLC, like the Booty email, and the Starfield 10M PS5 game sales lost worth $0,25b-$0.5b - more than what PC+Xbox sales will make them - and probably even the esports CoD SLC for 110m per month active players, and probably interested in more evidence to support it being a 2 way competition by PS/XB doubling as lounge media players for Streaming apps and DVD/Blu-ray/4K blu-ray that gets sizable use, only on those platforms.

Microsoft's own document uses propose FTC case info so the ability to discount such anti-merger new info will also prove difficult for Microsoft IMO.

 

[TrueGrime]

You'd think ultimately Xbox would love to ditch the Xbox hardware. And long term become solely an app based service installable anywhere and everywhere. Isnt that the the ideal Netflix dream... they could become part of PSN along the lines of EA Play or Ubisoft+ and remain fully integrated with Windows.

Right alongside the usual MS + industry doomsday takes, Microsoft wanting to ditch hardware and be a digital pub for everyone is right there for longest industry takes that never seem to happen.

I find Microsoft loving wanting to ditch consoles a hard pill to swallow when they've released two SKUs, with one being a low power, cheap as dirt option that they must be taking a loss on.

Microsoft obviously doesn't take much care about their losses, especially console losses, because they have entities that are countering that. Minecraft is just one game, but has made 2.9 billion dollars since Microsoft purchased them. The vast majority of gamepass subscribers sub on the highest level, and the ABK acquisition will just add to their revenue base. They are a long term company, however, and don't mind waiting for revenue streams to pick back up because they can wait.

 

[Adam_802]

Some people still thinking that MS would actually get out of the console space is so hilarious lol

 

[Deleted member 848825]

Some people still thinking that MS would actually get out of the console space is so hilarious lol

Its good to be so easily amused. There internal communications show them considering it at one stage. Its nothing I expect tomorrow. I was just wondering years down the road. Maybe they might of tried going without their own dedicated hardware platform. Being focused on mobile, PC, and TV onboard apps for example and no longer see the need for their own dedicated platform and put their focus into the software as a service only. Personally I hope they keep the console for competition with Sony. But then if they were totally platform agnostic, then maybe that would be good in other ways. But anyway that's clearly not the strategy today.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You can't be The Netflix of Gaming™ unless you publish your service to every device like Netflix does.

Unless, your plan is to consolidate and divest all the top third parties in the industry.

 

[Vox Machina]

Cloud is "Microsoft's" strategy. I don't see how they give up any lead and strength in that market for a failing division of Microsoft.

They wouldn't have to divest the entirety to Azure in the UK, just the licensing rights for Activision Blizzard games for Cloud Streaming Services.

You can't be The Netflix of Gaming™ unless you publish your service to every device like Netflix does.

Unless, your plan is to consolidate and divest all the top third parties in the industry.

What does this even mean?

 

[DeepEnigma]

What does this even mean?

Words are hard. Struggling to find a PR response, or?

 

[Vox Machina]

Words are hard. Struggling to find a PR response, or?

Sorry I was worried you had a stroke and just blurted out a garbled mess of buzzwords in some transparent dogwhistle attempt.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Sorry I was worried you had a stroke and just blurted out a garbled mess of buzzwords in some transparent dogwhistle attempt.

Did you get off on the Reeetard bus?

Woof! Woof!

Beep! Boop!

 

[MasterCornholio]

Did you get off on the Reeetard bus?

Woof! Woof!

Beep! Boop!

Boob noob beep vlah blah?

 

[adamsapple]

More musings from the EC's report per Idas.

The EC considered that the final commitments were as effective as a structural remedy and that divesting part of ABK would not have covered the entire existing and future games of ABK (page 205)

Therefore, the Commission considers that the Final Commitments are as effective as a structural divesture and even have additional benefits that go beyond preserving the situation absent the Transaction. Whatever part of the Activision Blizzard business Microsoft could have offered to divest, such divestiture would not have covered the entire existing and future games of Activision Blizzard. Furthermore, the Commission takes the view that the Final Commitments can be implemented and will be effective. The licenses will apply automatically. The license to consumers will grant to all consumers in the EEA as of day one streaming rights which empower these consumers to benefit from the games they have access to in additional ways that they did not have pre-Transaction. Taking a divestiture remedy as a benchmark for effectiveness and efficiency, the Final Commitments are suitable to address the competition concerns.

The EC considered that the final commitments were more effective than a prohibition too (page 205)

In line with the above, the Commission considers that the Final Commitments have additional benefits that go beyond preserving the situation absent the Transaction, and are therefore more effective in addressing competition concerns than a prohibition. Even though the Commission concluded that absent the Transaction, Activision Blizzard would have made its games available for cloud game streaming, these games are not available at the time of the Decision. Following the Final Commitments, however, all Activision Blizzard games would be immediately available for streaming and will remain available for the duration of the Final Commitments. It is equally important that they are available not only to a handful of already large cloud game streaming providers but to almost all interested cloud game streaming providers. Under both these aspects, the situation following the implementation of the Final Commitments exceeds the conditions that would have prevailed absent the transaction.

In fact, by making the popular Activision Blizzard games available to all interested providers under a royalty-free license, the Final Commitments can be expected to significantly advance the development of cloud game streaming in the EEA.

 

[Vox Machina]

More musings from the EC's report per Idas.

This is what Vestager meant when she called the EU Remedies "procomptetitive". Meaning that absent the remedies there is no chance in hell the smaller Cloud Gaming providers could ever afford to license CoD alone, much less the entirety of Activision/Blizzard's catalog of games. In the status quo there were only ever a handful of cloud gaming providers that would have had the ability to do so, and, to date, none of them even have.

 

[PaintTinJr]

This is what Vestager meant when she called the EU Remedies "procomptetitive". Meaning that absent the remedies there is no chance in hell the smaller Cloud Gaming providers could ever afford to license CoD alone, much less the entirety of Activision/Blizzard's catalog of games. In the status quo there were only ever a handful of cloud gaming providers that would have had the ability to do so, and, to date, none of them even have.

So in opposition to their duty, it is now the EC's responsibility to pick winners, yes?

In this merger they are picking generic small cloud companies and the biggest gaming company in the world, regardless of innovation, and at the expense of consumer's natural market leader.

I personally prefer the CMA's methodology of letting natural monopolies form - as they will in almost every market - where innovation is protected from unnatural market forces - like 2nd place losing billions getting gifted control of all the IP of the largest 3rd party publisher in the world, including CoD.

 

[TrueGrime]

So in opposition to their duty, it is now the EC's responsibility to pick winners, yes?

In this merger they are picking generic small cloud companies and the biggest gaming company in the world, regardless of innovation, and at the expense of consumer's natural market leader.

I personally prefer the CMA's methodology of letting natural monopolies form - as they will in almost every market - where innovation is protected from unnatural market forces - like 2nd place losing billions getting gifted control of all the IP of the largest 3rd party publisher in the world, including CoD.

I tend to not prefer "theories" of harm that might never materialize in a decade to "in the now" gains by even small cloud providers that are trying to gain somewhat of a foothold, and if signing deals with MS can help them in that regard, then why not?

 

[Vox Machina]

So in opposition to their duty, it is now the EC's responsibility to pick winners, yes?

In this merger they are picking generic small cloud companies and the biggest gaming company in the world, regardless of innovation, and at the expense of consumer's natural market leader.

I personally prefer the CMA's methodology of letting natural monopolies form - as they will in almost every market - where innovation is protected from unnatural market forces - like 2nd place losing billions getting gifted control of all the IP of the largest 3rd party publisher in the world, including CoD.

Status quo was that the winners in the Cloud Gaming "market" were the ones that were already winning in the overall cloud market. They were the winners that were already winning, i.e. the incumbents. The combined entity will be able to kickstart the nascent cloud gaming market by bootstrapping any prospective provider with the entirety of Activision/Blizzard's catalog, and Microsoft has 1-upped that and committed to providing their entire catalog as well. On top of THAT they applied that package globally and not just in the EEA (as was mandated by the EU CC). It's not that there are winners being picked with this strategy, ANY cloud gaming provider, even ones that will be created in the future, can ask to be included in the program and will automatically have a HUGE catalog of games to start up their service with at literally zero cost for the licenses.

 

[havoc00]

Anything new? Any leaks supporting this will get done or will not?

 

[Vox Machina]

Anything new? Any leaks supporting this will get done or will not?

CMA uploaded MSFT's submission for an MCC in order to derogate from the Final Report in their Final Order.

 

[havoc00]

CMA uploaded MSFT's submission for an MCC in order to derogate from the Final Report in their Final Order.

Anything from that, that could lead to believe it will go through or not?

 

[PaintTinJr]

Status quo was that the winners in the Cloud Gaming "market" were the ones that were already winning in the overall cloud market. They were the winners that were already winning, i.e. the incumbents. The combined entity will be able to kickstart the nascent cloud gaming market by bootstrapping any prospective provider with the entirety of Activision/Blizzard's catalog, and Microsoft has 1-upped that and committed to providing their entire catalog as well. On top of THAT they applied that package globally and not just in the EEA (as was mandated by the EU CC). It's not that there are winners being picked with this strategy, ANY cloud gaming provider, even ones that will be created in the future, can ask to be included in the program and will automatically have a HUGE catalog of games to start up their service with at literally zero cost for the licenses.

Just so long as they use free linux and free proton, right?.....oh, no you meant a Windows license tied to DirectX, got it.

The market is nascent, no one but Microsoft with Azure, Windows and Xbox has an established winning position....so your's and the EC's plan is to let them buy ATVI

 

[Vox Machina]

Just so long as they use free linux and free proton, right?.....oh, no you meant a Windows license tied to DirectX, got it.

The market is nascent, no one but Microsoft with Azure, Windows and Xbox has an established winning position....so your's and the EC's plan is to let them buy ATVI

No I meant a license for the games themselves, but you knew that already. The cloud providers are free to use Linux/Mac/Playstation OS, whatever they want, but using an OS that can't run the games means they'll only get a subset of the libraries, of course.

Anything from that, that could lead to believe it will go through or not?

No, nothing unexpected. This was one of the outputs expected from the last CMC with the CAT, the other being a new RMS notified to the CMA.

 

[PaintTinJr]

No I meant a license for the games themselves, but you knew that already. The cloud providers are free to use Linux/Mac/Playstation OS, whatever they want, but using an OS that can't run the games means they'll only get a subset of the libraries, of course.

When little company Google can't use an alternative OS and this was part of the CMA Cloud SLC argument that Windows, Azure and Xbox gives them a lead that can't be matched - when adding ABK's library - the EC's document won't move things at all if the inquiry group apply the same principles again.

 

[Vox Machina]

When little company Amazon can't use an alternative OS and this was part of the CMA Cloud SLC argument that Windows, Azure and Xbox gives them a lead that can't be matched - when adding ABK's library - the EC's document won't move things at all if the inquiry group apply the same principles again.

Nothing about the EC remedies preclude a prospective Cloud Gaming provider from using an alternate OS. Amazon could launch a Cloud Gaming service TODAY that uses Linux (or insert your favorite alternate OS) on the backend and they'd be free to pay Activision for a license to stream all of their games that run on Linux (not sure how many of those there are). The same would be true after the merger except that they wouldn't have to pay Microsoft for a license to stream all of their games that run on Linux, the license would be free.

Switch the alternate OS in the example above with the Playstation OS and the process remains the same, except that the amount of games that are available for that hypothetical service are now much higher. The problem here is that Sony forecloses competitors from using their Playstation OS. Microsoft doesn't foreclose competitors from using their Windows OS. Linux being freeware is, obviously, impossible for foreclose.

Edit: Oh and also Windows itself is an open platform. There's nothing stopping prospective Cloud Gaming providers from using Windows as the base OS and using different accelerated graphics APIs like Vulkan.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Nothing about the EC remedies preclude a prospective Cloud Gaming provider from using an alternate OS. Amazon could launch a Cloud Gaming service TODAY that uses Linux (or insert your favorite alternate OS) on the backend and they'd be free to pay Activision for a license to stream all of their games that run on Linux (not sure how many of those there are). The same would be true after the merger except that they wouldn't have to pay Microsoft for a license to stream all of their games that run on Linux, the license would be free.

Switch the alternate OS in the example above with the Playstation OS and the process remains the same, except that the amount of games that are available for that hypothetical service are now much higher.

Edit: Oh and also Windows itself is an open platform. There's nothing stopping prospective Cloud Gaming providers from using Windows as the base OS and using different accelerated graphics APIs like Vulkan.

You are giving off a SoloKingRobert/florian writing style, now and your failure to acknowledge the market power of Windows/DirectX, Azure and Xbox combined with ABK's library certainly seem devoid of any critical thinking to agree with negativity against this deal IMHO.

You've just said Windows is an open platform, when every company that has died at the hands of Microsoft - like Novell - would attest to the APIs are far from open. In this very thread - about 1000 pages back - I linked a great gaf thread link about Ubershaders being completely opaque for processing on Windows through the Hardware Abstraction layer (HAL) to get similar optimisation between Nvidia/AMD from people who are so proficient they wrote ubershaders (in Vulkan IIRC) to eliminate shader stutter in the Dolphin emulator with games like Metroid prime. they were told they couldn't get access to the problem because it is closed source, and no surprise they got parity performance via linux. So not really an open system for gaming when the graphics API is the point around which competitive advantage rotates - as it will be in cloud gaming.

 

[Vox Machina]

You are giving of a SoloKingRoberts writing style, now and your failure to acknowledge the market power of Windows/DirectX, Azure and Xbox combined with ABK's library certainly seem devoid of any critical thinking to agree with negativety against this deal IMHO.

You've just said Windows is an open platform, when every company that has died at the hands of Microsoft - like Novell - would attest to the APIs are far from open. In this very thread - about 1000 pages back - I linked a great gaf thread link about Ubershaders being completely opaque for processing on Windows through the Hardware Abstraction layer (HAL) to get similar optimisation between Nvidia/AMD from people who are so proficient they wrote ubershaders (in Vulkan IIRC) to eliminate shader stutter in the Dolphin emulator with games like Metroid prime. they were told they couldn't get access to the problem because it is closed source, and no surprise they got parity performance via linux. So not really an open system for gaming when the graphics API is the fulcrum of competitive advantage - as it will be in cloud gaming.

When all else fails, accuse the person you disagree with of being an alt, huh? I have no issue providing proof of my identity to mods, if that's what it takes.

As far as the rest of your post. You seem to be conflating Windows source code being closed-source with its APIs being closed. I find it hard to believe DirectX being unavailable to competitor operating systems is so detrimental to their success when, wait a sec, *checks notes* the market leader in console gaming (Sony Playstation) provides a closed-source operating system that has massive software support from basically every upstream provider of games and it does NOT use DirectX.

 

[PaintTinJr]

When all else fails, accuse the person you disagree with of being an alt, huh? I have no issue providing proof of my identity to mods, if that's what it takes.

As far as the rest of your post. You seem to be conflating Windows source code being closed-source with its APIs being closed. I find it hard to believe DirectX being unavailable to competitor operating systems is so detrimental to their success when, wait a sec, *checks notes* the market leader in console gaming (Sony Playstation) provides a closed-source operating system that has massive software support from basically every upstream provider of games and it does NOT use DirectX.

Please do, as Florian is a special case that gets paid to shill for a poor little $2,7T company and isn't the only one.

Your line of defending the indefensible - unless paid - from a regular gamer position is so illogical I would have expected you to have at least applied critical thinking by now to have agreed on something, even if your end reason was wanting a simple sub for all your gaming on your preferred Microsoft platform.

Cloud gaming will not be running console versions of games as is, even back in the day with Sony's cloud service acquisition they were running modified versions. Cloud gaming today will run on desktop operating systems with desktop graphics APIs, even on Sony's cloud services - hence their PC porting - so your Cloud gaming equivalency of the 95% market share PC gaming OS (windows) with 0% PlayStation's (modified linux OS with highly modified Opengl ES hardware) is laughable.

 

[Vox Machina]

Please do, as Florian is a special case that gets paid to shill for a poor little $2,7T company and isn't the only one.

Your line of defending the indefensible - unless paid - from a regular gamer position is so illogical I would have expected you to have at least applied critical thinking by now to have agreed on something, even if your end reason was wanting a simple sub for all your gaming on your preferred Microsoft platform.

Cloud gaming will not be running console versions of games as is, even back in the day with Sony's cloud service acquisition they were running modified versions. Cloud gaming today will run on desktop operating systems with desktop graphics APIs, even on Sony's cloud services - hence their PC porting - so your Cloud gaming equivalency of the 95% market share PC gaming OS (windows) with 0% PlayStation's (modified linux OS with highly modified Opengl ES hardware) is laughable.

Ah yes, "market-leading" Cloud Gaming service xCloud running that Desktop Operating System... Xbox OS...

FFS man do you even think about what you're typing before you type it? If you're so concerned with DirectX taking over the nascent cloud gaming "market" then why aren't you petitioning or suing Sony to force them to stop foreclosing their widely-supported, non-DirectX OS to cloud gaming providers? That seems like a simple solution to this doomsday scenario you've invented.

 

[adamsapple]

Cloud gaming will not be running console versions of games as is, even back in the day with Sony's cloud service acquisition they were running modified versions. Cloud gaming today will run on desktop operating systems with desktop graphics APIs, even on Sony's cloud services - hence their PC porting - so your Cloud gaming equivalency of the 95% market share PC gaming OS (windows) with 0% PlayStation's (modified linux OS with highly modified Opengl ES hardware) is laughable.

Xcloud is running games on Series X hardware. What are you on about.

 

[Punished Miku]

When all else fails, accuse the person you disagree with of being an alt, huh? I have no issue providing proof of my identity to mods, if that's what it takes.

Only if the person accusing you gets a ban when you prove them wrong.

 

[havoc00]