Support NeoGAF

[johnjohn]

Looks like the CMA is about to be neutered like many of us suspected. Can't have the UK being perceived as "closed for business"...

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Sorry - wasn’t clear earlier - I meant from a pure purchase perspective.. Better stated… I don’t think that Sony can realistically afford to take a run at T2 …

That's because you think that they would have to buy them out in straight cash.

Sony was looking at buying Fox when they were on the block and they went for way more money than T2 would go for.

When you consider cash, financing, and stock swap, assumption of debt, they can definitely afford T2.

 

[cartman414]

Can't tell who's worse, them or the Church of Scientology blocking right to repair.

 

[StereoVsn]

CMA and FTC: we are blocking this deal

MS: actually, no you’re not

CMA and FTC: ok

This process cost MILLIONS in tax payer money. It’s a sham. What’s the point?

The point is that the process is needed. However we need to get some competent folks in the offices for a change.

MA was severely penalized after their browser shenanigans and more. So it can happen, just need better hires.

 

[T-0800]

I do think Sony is going to have to respond in kind with their own M&A strategy and a more aggressive one than we've seen so far.

I don't think setting off a nuclear arms race in gaming and creating mass consolidation is creating competition.

Cloud gaming was a concern, but this should have been stopped largely on the SLC in the gaming market alone.

If Sony acquires T2 as a response to this, I don't think that will benefit gamers to not be able to play GTA6 on Xbox and given the Xbox userbase, that's a foreclosure Sony would probably be comfortable making.

Why does everyone talk about what Sony must do but no one ever mentions Nintendo?

 

[Ozzie666]

In 15 years, cloud gaming might actually be in a tenable state. Microsoft playing the long game.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I was thinking the same thing lol, CMA's statement is code word for "the check cleared"

Either, cloud gaming was the reason, or it was the fake reason the UK used to try and block the deal...two ways to look at it.

 

[cireza]

"When cloud gaming takes off"

"Sky will be the limit"

 

[SABRE220]

The point is that the process is needed. However we need to get some competent folks in the offices for a change.

MA was severely penalized after their browser shenanigans and more. So it can happen, just need better hires.

The process is needed but its not about competent people in the regulatory bodies. It's about the actual authority and respect that is given to these regulatory bodies. You can have the most skilled and competent people leading the efforts but if their own government actively tries to sabotage and limit their efforts due to corruption and lobbying the whole thing becomes a farce...in case you meant competent people in the government/judicial system then yes that would be a great change but sadly a dream.

 

[wolffy66]

What they are saying makes sense if you believe that cloud gaming is a growing, important market.

I disagree with the whole idea that cloud gaming is anywhere near happening. And as such the CMA missed the boat on the whole concept.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Just curious - do you actually read what you post?

I read what you wrote, but it is such low effort drive-by, there is nothing added and nothing to read.

If taking issue with my post, feel free to "get help"tm and up your game and compose an actual response,...or just ignore, maybe?

 

[Starbuck2907]

Exclusive cloud rights to Ubisoft??? LOL!!! Ubisoft can’t even run a consistently functional store, much less a streaming service.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Why does everyone talk about what Sony must do but no one ever mentions Nintendo?

Because Nintendo is not a direct competitor to Microsoft and their ambitions for the last 20 years have been pretty limited in scope.

 

[TransTrender]

These people are retarded.

In 15 years, cloud gaming might actually be in a tenable state. Microsoft playing the long game.

They can't see beyond their own old cold shriveled dicks. It's about the green and the next quarter.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Either, cloud gaming was the reason, or it was the fake reason the UK used to try and block the deal...two ways to look at it.

I am pretty sure that they were just trying to find a reason to block it. I mean they blocked a deal between airlines over 62 plane tickets sold in UK so...

Them trying to predict the gaming in 10-15 years is hilarious. I bet if people were asked if console games would become playable on iPhone 2 years ago, people would say that it would not be possible.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I am pretty sure that they were just trying to find a reason to block it. I mean they blocked a deal between airlines over 62 plane tickets sold in UK so...

Them trying to predict the gaming in 10-15 years is hilarious. I bet if people were asked if console games would become playable on iPhone 2 years ago, people would say that it would not be possible.

Yeah, they were scrambling for a reason to block and cloud gaming was their only argument that could hold water...then MS made moves and they had nothing left.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I am pretty sure that they were just trying to find a reason to block it. I mean they blocked a deal between airlines over 62 plane tickets sold in UK so...

Them trying to predict the gaming in 10-15 years is hilarious. I bet if people were asked if console games would become playable on iPhone 2 years ago, people would say that it would not be possible.

How disingenuous can you get?

For you to even mention a specific amount of tickets I'm guessing you are at some troll-farm because the issue was always about companies that would do business in the UK being unable to access ticketing "system" technology that was getting bought to remove it from the market, which would have the potential to raise prices of all airline tickets from lower competition.

And the CMA aren't predicting, they have the discretion to extend the remedies beyond the time given based on the facts as they are.

 

[FeralEcho]

Buying studios does not create competition. Creating great games does.

Phil Spencer and the green crew seeing your post

 

[Rykan]

Yeah, they were scrambling for a reason to block and cloud gaming was their only argument that could hold water...then MS made moves and they had nothing left.

The CMA was scrambling for a reason to block...why? lol, I like how everything has to be this insane conspiracy. It couldn't possibly be that the CMA had concerns that were addressed with this new revision, this the deal can now move forward.

 

[Bojanglez]

The CMA was scrambling for a reason to block...why? lol, I like how everything has to be this insane conspiracy. It couldn't possibly be that the CMA had concerns that were addressed with this new revision, this the deal can now move forward.

Strange thing is I don't see how CMA are happy, because initially they said they wanted a divestment that in order to ensure that they don't have to constantly monitor the deal. Now the Ubisoft deal is a technical divestment, but it seems like a fudge that doesn't really stop MS influencing the platforms that these games can appear on. I can see many ways that this deal will need continual scrutiny to ensure MS is playing nicely. For example, there is an understanding that they can only charge 'market rates' for other operating system ports or compatibility, but who dictates the market rate and who checks this? What is the mechanism for appeal if a vendor is quoted a charge that it deems unreasonable?

 

[ReBurn]

The point is that the process is needed. However we need to get some competent folks in the offices for a change.

MA was severely penalized after their browser shenanigans and more. So it can happen, just need better hires.

Microsoft wasn't severely punished as an outcome of their browser monopoly trial. In the settlement they agreed to make it easier to use different default apps for some Windows functions and they opened some Windows API's, but that's about it. In the EU they agreed to make a special version of Windows 7 without IE, but ultimately that was canceled. and nobody cared. The only thing it really cost Microsoft was legal fees.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

Consolidation does not bring competition.

The problem is that these regulatory bodies are only concerned with consumer prices, and not actual competition.

 

[HoofHearted]

I read what you wrote, but it is such low effort drive-by, there is nothing added and nothing to read.

If taking issue with my post, feel free to "get help"tm and up your game and compose an actual response,...or just ignore, maybe?

You didn’t answer my question- and just responded with a weak comeback… So you don’t read your posts?

For a little more clarity- I’ll guide you back to your previous post and why I’m inquiring….

What I'm interested to know, now is what would prevent Sony from buying Ubisoft temporarily just for the Acti cloud gaming rights? which Ubisoft will hold in perpetuity for all games made for the next 15years and before, or longer if the CMA extends it at their discretion, <snip>

In what world would a regulator change an agreement “at their discretion” ?

That’s not their job. I could be wrong however - Maybe it’s different in the UK where the CMA can just make up new rules and regulations at will?

That’s the entire purpose and reason for this extended review by ALL the regulatory bodies around the world who ultimately approved this deal.

So back to my question- do you actually read your posts - or do you just make things up on the go in order to support your POV?

 

[adamsapple]

How disingenuous can you get

I'm sorry, just a bit strange that you're calling someone else's theory-crafting 'disingenuous' when on the last page you wrote a 3, 4 paragraph long mental roadmap of how Sony can buy Ubisoft to get a 'gotcha' on the cloud market.

Just a bit bizarre.


-


On topic:

Competition watchdog hits out at Sunak over plans to water down Big Tech powers

Britain’s top competition regulator has hit out at Rishi Sunak following reports that the Prime Minister wants to water down the agency’s powers.

uk.finance.yahoo.com

 

[Ozriel]

Yeah, they were scrambling for a reason to block and cloud gaming was their only argument that could hold water...then MS made moves and they had nothing left.

the CMA’s being attacked for folding, but there was quite a good chance they’d get sent back to the table by the CAT appeal, especially after the FTC lost so publicly.

Strange thing is I don't see how CMA are happy, because initially they said they wanted a divestment that in order to ensure that they don't have to constantly monitor the deal. Now the Ubisoft deal is a technical divestment, but it seems like a fudge that doesn't really stop MS influencing the platforms that these games can appear on. I can see many ways that this deal will need continual scrutiny to ensure MS is playing nicely. For example, there is an understanding that they can only charge 'market rates' for other operating system ports or compatibility, but who dictates the market rate and who checks this? What is the mechanism for appeal if a vendor is quoted a charge that it deems unreasonable?

They didn’t want to have to monitor behavioral remedies.
With a structural remedy and rights divestment, Ubisoft does the heavy lifting for monitoring.

‘Market rates’ aren’t that difficult to verify. Microsoft will detail the resources required to make these ports to other OSes and Ubisoft would cover the expenses. And charge accordingly to cover for the expense.

 

[Bojanglez]

the CMA’s being attacked for folding, but there was quite a good chance they’d get sent back to the table by the CAT appeal, especially after the FTC lost so publicly.



They didn’t want to have to monitor behavioral remedies.
With a structural remedy and rights divestment, Ubisoft does the heavy lifting for monitoring.

‘Market rates’ aren’t that difficult to verify. Microsoft will detail the resources required to make these ports to other OSes and Ubisoft would cover the expenses. And charge accordingly to cover for the expense.

So Ubisoft is verifying the rates? No problem there then. What dispute mechanism exists?

 

[Ozriel]

So Ubisoft is verifying the rates? No problem there then. What dispute mechanism exists?

Probably the CMA. Not the first time regulators have had to follow up when there’s a breach. When MS stopped the browser ballot prematurely in the EU, Google filed a report to regulators that ended up in approx $1bn in fines paid by MS.

Monitoring won’t be an issue.

 

[Bojanglez]

Probably the CMA. Not the first time regulators have had to follow up when there’s a breach. When MS stopped the browser ballot prematurely in the EU, Google filed a report to regulators that ended up in approx $1bn in fines paid by MS.

Monitoring won’t be an issue.

To be fair I thought in the initial response where the deal was rejected by the CMA discounted behavioural remedies, but there was a clause that allows it.

19. Access remedies are a form of behavioural remedy which seek to maintain or restore competition by enabling competitors to have access on appropriate terms to the products and facilities of a merger entity that they require to remain competitive. Access remedies normally require an access commitment which is set out in significant detail so that both customers and agencies can enforce compliance effectively. In this case, an access remedy would look to ensure third party access to Activision Blizzard, Inc’s content that is necessary to remedy the provisional SLCs

So I guess the access commitment will be available for all to view in some way and must contain enough detail to have reassured them. Presumably in this case they would have outlined existing market rates for similar tasks (e.g. porting a AAA ) and commit to costs that would not exceed this (beyond a reasonable rate).

Still, the problem would be with any of this, who is really going to take MS to court over anything even if they did fuck around.

 

[Ozriel]

Still, the problem would be with any of this, who is really going to take MS to court over anything even if they did fuck around.

Court? why would anyone need that when you could just report to the CMA and the European Commission and they’d get steep fines?

Who in their right Mind at MS would pussyfoot around with cloud gaming and risk multibillion dollar fines and face threats towards future acquisitions?

There’s a reason Big Tech is trying to either lobby or cosy up to anti-trust bodies. With the new AI wave picking up steam, tech acquisitions are bound to continue across cloud, enterprise and AI companies and nobody needs regulators seriously pissed at them.

 

[PaintTinJr]

You didn’t answer my question- and just responded with a weak comeback… So you don’t read your posts?

For a little more clarity- I’ll guide you back to your previous post and why I’m inquiring….


In what world would a regulator change an agreement “at their discretion” ?

That’s not their job. I could be wrong however - Maybe it’s different in the UK where the CMA can just make up new rules and regulations at will?

That’s the entire purpose and reason for this extended review by ALL the regulatory bodies around the world who ultimately approved this deal.

So back to my question- do you actually read your posts - or do you just make things up on the go in order to support your POV?

Answering your low effort drive by question - that doesn't need answered because the question is idiotic - was only going to enable you to continue in further bad faith dialog, so feel free to take that as your answer.

The agreement IIRC from reading the CMA info before the decision, or after, I'm not 100%, says the 15year limit is under constant review and can be extend if the nascent market SLC requires it to be extended based on CMA's monitoring, which - monitoring - is part of the merger remedies.

So even if that is wrong, now, I don't think it is, I was still composing it on the basis of the information I had at the time.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I'm sorry, just a bit strange that you're calling someone else's theory-crafting 'disingenuous' when on the last page you wrote a 3, 4 paragraph long mental roadmap of how Sony can buy Ubisoft to get a 'gotcha' on the cloud market.

Just a bit bizarre.


-


On topic:

Competition watchdog hits out at Sunak over plans to water down Big Tech powers

Britain’s top competition regulator has hit out at Rishi Sunak following reports that the Prime Minister wants to water down the agency’s powers.

uk.finance.yahoo.com

So do you work there too?

I did wonder when you had Unknown?'s post history on hand like Three accused you of double standards accusing others of furiously search your history, and my first thought was your post about Unknown?'s use of the word "check" was automated from the profile you might have of him at a farm, and no furious search was done by you, hence why you never spotted the double standard in your accusation.

 

[FoxMcChief]

The fact they have to comment on this further to their final decision proves they know the optics are appalling.

Yup. Like why even open an investigation in the first place. Should have gone right through.

 

[adamsapple]

So do you work there too?

I did wonder when you had Unknown?'s post history on hand like Three accused you of double standards accusing others of furiously search your history, and my first thought was your post about Unknown?'s use of the word "check" was automated from the profile you might have of him at a farm, and no furious search was done by you, hence why you never spotted the double standard in your accusation.

Ah, gotcha. You don't have an actual meaningful retort.

Not surprised since your last few months in the big acquisition thread were also spent theory crafting wild mental scenarios about how an xyz scenario could happen that will stop the deal from going through. You're welcome to do that, just don't call others disingenuous when they say something 5% of your energy.

I think HoofHearted put it best:

Just curious - do you actually read what you post?

 

[PaintTinJr]

Ah, gotcha. You don't have an actual meaningful retort.

Not surprised since your last few months in the big acquisition thread were also spent theory crafting wild mental scenarios about how an xyz scenario could happen that will stop the deal from going through. You're welcome to do that, just don't call others disingenuous when they say something 5% of your energy.

I think HoofHearted put it best:

What was there to reply to, when I'd already corrected his false argument that you tried to co-op?

His post was completely disingenuous about the airline ticketing system technology acquisition being blocked from a company that wanted to ensure rivals in the airline market couldn't use it to compete. Their motivation may have just been to reduce competition in the US, but the impact the CMA saw and correctly took issue with was global.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I was one of the people who the CMA consulted early on regarding this deal and I said it was a horrible thing for competition. The deal's changed since then, but I still think it's bad for the games biz overall. To say it promotes competition is completely laughable.

 

[Rick Dangerous]

Regulators should have enforced only one thing or block the deal : all ABK games, past and future, would be multiplatform for the 4 leading gaming platform FOR LIFE.
It would have tested the (now debunked) "we want to bring games to more gamers" moto from M$...

Fucking retards. cloud gaming is so small, this is a joke.

 

[Rick Dangerous]

I was one of the people who the CMA consulted early on regarding this deal and I said it was a horrible thing for competition. The deal's changed since then, but I still think it's bad for the games biz overall. To say it promotes competition is completely laughable.

may i ask what is your role / job ?

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

may i ask what is your role / job ?

Without getting into specifics, I was head of something at a cloud gaming competitor.

 

[devilNprada]

Microsoft wasn't severely punished as an outcome of their browser monopoly trial. In the settlement they agreed to make it easier to use different default apps for some Windows functions and they opened some Windows API's, but that's about it. In the EU they agreed to make a special version of Windows 7 without IE, but ultimately that was canceled. and nobody cared. The only thing it really cost Microsoft was legal fees.

One could argue it allowed for the rise of google.

 

[ReBurn]

One could argue it allowed for the rise of google.

Microsoft was definitely behind the ball when it came to understanding the internet and why the browser isolation model made sense. They wasted years pushing activex to break browser security and pushing vbscript adoption. So yeah, Google coming along and building out their model for web-first applications and focusing on JavaScript/HTML to capitalize on what Microsoft couldn't or wouldn't was kind of genius. It was an insidious kind of genius considering how much data they collected before everyone knew what they were up to, but it was genius all the same.

 

[Topher]

Microsoft wasn't severely punished as an outcome of their browser monopoly trial. In the settlement they agreed to make it easier to use different default apps for some Windows functions and they opened some Windows API's, but that's about it. In the EU they agreed to make a special version of Windows 7 without IE, but ultimately that was canceled. and nobody cared. The only thing it really cost Microsoft was legal fees.

Ironically IE became irrelevant and now Microsoft uses Bing and Windows to discourage its users from downloading Chrome.

 

[ReBurn]

Ironically IE became irrelevant and now Microsoft uses Bing and Windows to discourage its users from downloading Chrome.

Yep. They were literally never actually required to change their code or their behavior. All they had to do was give folks a choice to get governments to move on. And since that time their option to switch to other apps has been accompanied by nagging not to change or to change back.

 

[graywolf323]

Ironically IE became irrelevant and now Microsoft uses Bing and Windows to discourage its users from downloading Chrome.

“the added trust of Microsoft.“