11 ms·

I don't mind the complaint about CMA being undemocratic because it's a council of unelected bureaucrats, it's just trash-talk from someone that didn't get what

I don't mind the complaint about CMA being undemocratic because it's a council of unelected bureaucrats, it's just trash-talk from someone that didn't get what they wanted; to be expected. IMO the reason why this decision is really dumb is because the reason given was cloud gaming. I think that people are missing this. This isn't a market. Almost nobody plays on cloud gaming platforms, like Stadia which recently closed down, or similar. The idea of blocking a deal because maybe this technology will become much more popular one day and maybe Microsoft will be the success is IMO dumb. It's just a dumb argument. Concerns about CoD and PlayStation at least make sense, but not given here.

nbevans 3y ago
Does "cloud gaming" encompass things like Xbox Game Pass though? Subscription model with downloadable access to all games definitely feels cloudy to me.
- haunter 3y ago
  No >The cloud allows UK gamers to avoid buying expensive gaming consoles and PCs and gives them much more flexibility and choice as to how they play. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/microsoft-activision-deal-prevented-to-protect-innovation-and-choice-in-cloud-gaming https://www.gov.uk/government/news/microsoft-activision-deal... YET they next sentence >Allowing Microsoft to take such a strong position in the cloud gaming market just as it begins to grow rapidly would risk undermining the innovation that is crucial to the development of these opportunities. Which is really funny considering the closure of Google Stadia, so maybe it was a 4D chess move by Google after all
  - mattferderer 3y ago
    I haven't read anything that makes the CMA look good yet & I'm trying to be impartial. If this is there definition of cloud gaming, how do phones come into play? They seem like a far bigger market that doesn't require additional hardware purchases specifically for gaming. You can hook them up to popular video game controllers & your TV. No latency issues, which Microsoft won't be fixing in cloud streaming type games without insane investments near users. The article in the headline doesn't actually give any good reasons & I can't find any solid reasons by any of the people cheering on any Microsoft hate. If you want to call Microsoft a monopoly & hate on them, there are tons of great & current examples but this just doesn't seem to be one. It's equivalent to blowing the whistle & calling a penalty on some random person for no reason because five plays earlier someone else on that team got away with one.
- gruez 3y ago
  >Subscription model with downloadable access to all games definitely feels cloudy to me. "Subscription" =/= "cloud"
  - flohofwoe 3y ago
    The Xbox Cloud Gaming (== game streaming) service is part of the Xbox Game Pass Ultimate (subscription) service, so in this case: "subscription" == "cloud".
- flohofwoe 3y ago
  "Cloud gaming" is such a muddy word that it could specifically mean game streaming services (like the Xbox Cloud Gaming service, which is part of Xbox Game Pass), but also the entirety of Xbox online services.
capableweb 3y ago
Did you actually read the report that the CMA released? They are not basing the block on some "maybe" future, but on current reality. > Microsoft already accounts for an estimated 60-70% of global cloud gaming services and has other important strengths in cloud gaming from owning Xbox, the leading PC operating system (Windows) and a global cloud computing infrastructure (Azure and Xbox Cloud Gaming). Microsoft already has a majority of the market. CMA asked Microsoft to provide guarantees they wouldn't abuse their position if they also owned Activision/Blizzard, and whatever guarantees Microsoft provides weren't enough to convince CMA. > Microsoft’s proposal contained a number of significant shortcomings connected with the growing and fast-moving nature of cloud gaming services: > It did not sufficiently cover different cloud gaming service business models, including multigame subscription services. > It was not sufficiently open to providers who might wish to offer versions of games on PC operating systems other than Windows. > It would standardise the terms and conditions on which games are available, as opposed to them being determined by the dynamism and creativity of competition in the market, as would be expected in the absence of the merger. Basically, Microsoft tried to weasel their way through the merger so they can prevent other actors from competing with them on a level playing field. Exactly the kind of shit CMA should block. The conclusion: > Accepting Microsoft’s remedy would inevitably require some degree of regulatory oversight by the CMA. By contrast, preventing the merger would effectively allow market forces to continue to operate and shape the development of cloud gaming without this regulatory intervention. Paraphrased: "Either we have to keep close track of them if merger is accepted, or we can just let companies compete in the market"
- haunter 3y ago
  >It did not sufficiently cover different cloud gaming service business models, including multigame subscription services. This is actually incredibly funny reading because Google Stadia was 100% worse than Xbox Cloud. You had to sub + pay for the game too. And some of them were exclusives too. Compared to that how Gamepass works in tandem with Xbox Cloud (you can play on PC, Xbox, and streaming) is day and night YET it's still a problem Plus I don't get the publisher part >It was not sufficiently open to providers who might wish to offer versions of games on PC operating systems other than Windows. Most of the Xbox Cloud games are multiplatform, and I don't just mean PC (Windows) and Xbox but Playstation and sometimes Linux or Mac too
doctor_eval 3y ago
> I don't mind the complaint about CMA being undemocratic And anyway, who elected Microsoft?
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  IBM.
- gruez 3y ago
  >who elected Microsoft? citizen: I want to paint my house blue mayor: I unilaterally forbid you from doing that, on the grounds that blue houses look unsightly citizen: that's undemocratic! mayor: who elected you to decide painting your house blue?
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    Limited Liability Corporations aren't citizens. Satya Natella is welcome to take MS private as a sole proprietorship.
    - Matl 3y ago
      Microsoft is certainly a legal persona with many of the same rights and tools as a regular citizen would have and oftentimes more, unfortunately.
    - judge2020 3y ago
      Corporations have the same rights as people; otherwise your freedom of speech and other rights could be abridged while you're conducting business as a corporation, which we don't want.
      - masfuerte 3y ago
        You don't conduct business as a corporation. The corporation conducts business.
        3y ago
sofixa 3y ago
> This isn't a market. Almost nobody plays on cloud gaming platforms, like Stadia which recently closed down, or similar. It's a market. Google bungling Stadia doesn't make it any less of a market, or we wouldn't be seeing Microsoft, Nvidia and Amazon (to a much lesser extent) pouring money into it. Regardless of your bubble, lots of people use cloud gaming services. There is no way to have concrete numbers, but the Stadia subreddit still has 110k subscribers months after the service shut down. That's not "almost nobody" on the dead service.
- qwytw 3y ago
  It's an insignificant niche market compared to the rest of Activision and Microsoft's gaming division. > 110k subscribers months after the service shut down. That's not "almost nobody" on the dead service It is approximately close to zero. Especially considering that subscribers != active users (not even close).
- tester756 3y ago
  110k Stadia which felt like most popular "Cloud" gaming? but let's assume that Nvidia also has something similar So let's say 250k cloud gaming, meanwhile "gaming" as a whole is like bilions of users Thus this Cloud gaming is basically non-existent.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    Why do you think that all users of Stadia would also subscribe to the Stadia subreddit and keep being a subscriber after it shut down? It'd be some miniscule percentage. Stadia also wasn't the most popular cloud gaming service, GeForce Now and Xbox Cloud Gaming are. Only Xbox Cloud Gaming reportedly had 10+ million users in 2022; meanwhile GeForce Now reportedly had 20+ million in 2022. I do not get the hate/dismissiveness coming out of a position of total lack of even the faintest idea about cloud gaming.
- badwolf 3y ago
  > the Stadia subreddit still has 110k subscribers How many of those 110k reddit users are/were actual Stadia subscribers though? Just because someone subscribes to a subreddit, doesn't mean they are now, or were ever subscribed to the actual product.
PaulHoule 3y ago
It made no sense at all, but there was a time when major parts of the game industry was talking about cloud gaming as if it were a thing and the media was going along. Normally we have to let lies and bullshit from corporations wash over us, all we can do is complain on forums and still have to argue with Kool Aid drinkers. If bullshit over cloud gaming meant Microsoft couldn't get what they wanted then it is payback... Sometimes you gotta learn that actions have consequences. --- Also there is a huge amount of confusion about what "cloud" means. For instance most of Adobe Creative "Cloud" is a set of desktop applications with limited cloud integration. What is has in common with with real cloud products (Salesforce.com, Figma) is that you pay for it with a monthly subscription. Microsoft would love to just get your money month after month so you can play Assassin's Creed Episode 4215 and Call of Duty: Battle of Bakhmut and they don't care if you as a consumer know what kind of hardware it is running on but you'd better be sure the bean counters are aware that they could sell a "gaming PC" equivalent cloud instance to somebody in Azure for a dollar an hour so the economics can't possibly add up. Yet the cloud gaming bullshit still keeps rolling, at the last keynote NVIDIA's CEO was saying kids might game from the back seat of a car but what phone company is going to invest the last 800% of costs to get cell phone coverage in the last 20% of places?
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  The reason cloud gaming comes up because on the off chance someone makes it work, it's a very lucrative market with a high barrier to entry. Steam is still pretty much undisputed leader in today's games marketplace and it's a very comfortable position worth billions of dollars. And that's just on one platform.
  - PaulHoule 3y ago
    There are other angles. NVIDIA likes it because it could justify higher prices for graphics cards. Suppose somebody plays 2 hours a game a day and they can justify an $1800 graphics card for that. (Over 3 years it's about $1 an hour, I'd compare that to about $0.45 an hour for the cheapest Azure instance with a less capable GPU) 22 hours a day the card is doing nothing, if other people were gaming on it and it were training neural network models the rest of the time the card could be worth $21,600. It's a throwback to IBM mainframes at the worst but NVIDIA could easily conclude it can't afford to sell 40-series cards to gamers.
pwthornton 3y ago
I have access to Microsoft's xCloud as part of my Xbox Game Pass sub. I never use it. The lag is too great. I am sure certain kinds of games could work reasonably well on it, but overall it's just such a poor experience. I'd rather either bring a Switch while traveling or just play a game on my phone or iPad. I can't believe the deal might fall apart because Microsoft has a "dominant" position in basically a non-existent market that there is no evidence will ever become a market. There are cloud games that work well. If the deal falls apart over this, and not the actual concerns about MS owning huge IP, this regulation is truly broken. These are not the kinds of games that people buy PlayStations and Xboxes for. Jackbox party games? Sure. Awesome in the cloud. A turn-based strategy or RPG? Why not. Anything that requires reflexes? Not happening.
georgeecollins 3y ago
I think you are defining cloud gaming more restively then the cma. They meant games as a service, particularly when they say MSFT can offer games on Windows computers in a way no competitor can match (ie free).
CodeWriter23 3y ago
Cloud Gaming: a solution to network latency that depends on pushing even more data down the pipe.
akhosravian 3y ago
I think everything you said is true, but also that the reasoning from the CMA is sound: Microsoft believes in cloud gaming, and regulators have been caught with their pants down by thinking they knew better than industry. Repeatedly.
rospaya 3y ago
> I don't mind the complaint about CMA being undemocratic because it's a council of unelected bureaucrats Is there a country where the organization ruling about competition cases is elected directly?
908B64B197 3y ago
> I don't mind the complaint about CMA being undemocratic because it's a council of unelected bureaucrats, it's just trash-talk from someone that didn't get what they wanted; to be expected. Is it really "trash talk" if it's 100% true? > The idea of blocking a deal because maybe this technology will become much more popular one day and maybe Microsoft will be the success is IMO dumb. It's just a dumb argument. You have to realize that these unelected bureaucrats have to justify their pension funds and headcounts. They NEED to block something so they can brag they "protected" the UK against some "monopolistic evil foreing tech giant". If you can't innovate... Regulate!
willio58 3y ago
The reason may be dumb but I'm anti-monopoly enough that I simply don't care. Anything that even slightly hinders companies from completely removing any form of competition in the space makes me happy.

nbevans 3y ago

Does "cloud gaming" encompass things like Xbox Game Pass though? Subscription model with downloadable access to all games definitely feels cloudy to me.

haunter 3y ago
No >The cloud allows UK gamers to avoid buying expensive gaming consoles and PCs and gives them much more flexibility and choice as to how they play. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/microsoft-activision-deal-prevented-to-protect-innovation-and-choice-in-cloud-gaming https://www.gov.uk/government/news/microsoft-activision-deal... YET they next sentence >Allowing Microsoft to take such a strong position in the cloud gaming market just as it begins to grow rapidly would risk undermining the innovation that is crucial to the development of these opportunities. Which is really funny considering the closure of Google Stadia, so maybe it was a 4D chess move by Google after all
- mattferderer 3y ago
  I haven't read anything that makes the CMA look good yet & I'm trying to be impartial. If this is there definition of cloud gaming, how do phones come into play? They seem like a far bigger market that doesn't require additional hardware purchases specifically for gaming. You can hook them up to popular video game controllers & your TV. No latency issues, which Microsoft won't be fixing in cloud streaming type games without insane investments near users. The article in the headline doesn't actually give any good reasons & I can't find any solid reasons by any of the people cheering on any Microsoft hate. If you want to call Microsoft a monopoly & hate on them, there are tons of great & current examples but this just doesn't seem to be one. It's equivalent to blowing the whistle & calling a penalty on some random person for no reason because five plays earlier someone else on that team got away with one.
gruez 3y ago
>Subscription model with downloadable access to all games definitely feels cloudy to me. "Subscription" =/= "cloud"
- flohofwoe 3y ago
  The Xbox Cloud Gaming (== game streaming) service is part of the Xbox Game Pass Ultimate (subscription) service, so in this case: "subscription" == "cloud".
flohofwoe 3y ago
"Cloud gaming" is such a muddy word that it could specifically mean game streaming services (like the Xbox Cloud Gaming service, which is part of Xbox Game Pass), but also the entirety of Xbox online services.

capableweb 3y ago

Did you actually read the report that the CMA released? They are not basing the block on some "maybe" future, but on current reality. > Microsoft already accounts for an estimated 60-70% of global cloud gaming services and has other important strengths in cloud gaming from owning Xbox, the leading PC operating system (Windows) and a global cloud computing infrastructure (Azure and Xbox Cloud Gaming). Microsoft already has a majority of the market. CMA asked Microsoft to provide guarantees they wouldn't abuse their position if they also owned Activision/Blizzard, and whatever guarantees Microsoft provides weren't enough to convince CMA. > Microsoft’s proposal contained a number of significant shortcomings connected with the growing and fast-moving nature of cloud gaming services: > It did not sufficiently cover different cloud gaming service business models, including multigame subscription services. > It was not sufficiently open to providers who might wish to offer versions of games on PC operating systems other than Windows. > It would standardise the terms and conditions on which games are available, as opposed to them being determined by the dynamism and creativity of competition in the market, as would be expected in the absence of the merger. Basically, Microsoft tried to weasel their way through the merger so they can prevent other actors from competing with them on a level playing field. Exactly the kind of shit CMA should block. The conclusion: > Accepting Microsoft’s remedy would inevitably require some degree of regulatory oversight by the CMA. By contrast, preventing the merger would effectively allow market forces to continue to operate and shape the development of cloud gaming without this regulatory intervention. Paraphrased: "Either we have to keep close track of them if merger is accepted, or we can just let companies compete in the market"

haunter 3y ago
>It did not sufficiently cover different cloud gaming service business models, including multigame subscription services. This is actually incredibly funny reading because Google Stadia was 100% worse than Xbox Cloud. You had to sub + pay for the game too. And some of them were exclusives too. Compared to that how Gamepass works in tandem with Xbox Cloud (you can play on PC, Xbox, and streaming) is day and night YET it's still a problem Plus I don't get the publisher part >It was not sufficiently open to providers who might wish to offer versions of games on PC operating systems other than Windows. Most of the Xbox Cloud games are multiplatform, and I don't just mean PC (Windows) and Xbox but Playstation and sometimes Linux or Mac too

doctor_eval 3y ago

> I don't mind the complaint about CMA being undemocratic And anyway, who elected Microsoft?

mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
IBM.
gruez 3y ago
>who elected Microsoft? citizen: I want to paint my house blue mayor: I unilaterally forbid you from doing that, on the grounds that blue houses look unsightly citizen: that's undemocratic! mayor: who elected you to decide painting your house blue?
- hgsgm 3y ago
  Limited Liability Corporations aren't citizens. Satya Natella is welcome to take MS private as a sole proprietorship.
  - Matl 3y ago
    Microsoft is certainly a legal persona with many of the same rights and tools as a regular citizen would have and oftentimes more, unfortunately.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    Corporations have the same rights as people; otherwise your freedom of speech and other rights could be abridged while you're conducting business as a corporation, which we don't want.
    - masfuerte 3y ago
      You don't conduct business as a corporation. The corporation conducts business.
      - 3y ago

sofixa 3y ago

> This isn't a market. Almost nobody plays on cloud gaming platforms, like Stadia which recently closed down, or similar. It's a market. Google bungling Stadia doesn't make it any less of a market, or we wouldn't be seeing Microsoft, Nvidia and Amazon (to a much lesser extent) pouring money into it. Regardless of your bubble, lots of people use cloud gaming services. There is no way to have concrete numbers, but the Stadia subreddit still has 110k subscribers months after the service shut down. That's not "almost nobody" on the dead service.

qwytw 3y ago
It's an insignificant niche market compared to the rest of Activision and Microsoft's gaming division. > 110k subscribers months after the service shut down. That's not "almost nobody" on the dead service It is approximately close to zero. Especially considering that subscribers != active users (not even close).
tester756 3y ago
110k Stadia which felt like most popular "Cloud" gaming? but let's assume that Nvidia also has something similar So let's say 250k cloud gaming, meanwhile "gaming" as a whole is like bilions of users Thus this Cloud gaming is basically non-existent.
- sofixa 3y ago
  Why do you think that all users of Stadia would also subscribe to the Stadia subreddit and keep being a subscriber after it shut down? It'd be some miniscule percentage. Stadia also wasn't the most popular cloud gaming service, GeForce Now and Xbox Cloud Gaming are. Only Xbox Cloud Gaming reportedly had 10+ million users in 2022; meanwhile GeForce Now reportedly had 20+ million in 2022. I do not get the hate/dismissiveness coming out of a position of total lack of even the faintest idea about cloud gaming.
badwolf 3y ago
> the Stadia subreddit still has 110k subscribers How many of those 110k reddit users are/were actual Stadia subscribers though? Just because someone subscribes to a subreddit, doesn't mean they are now, or were ever subscribed to the actual product.

PaulHoule 3y ago

It made no sense at all, but there was a time when major parts of the game industry was talking about cloud gaming as if it were a thing and the media was going along. Normally we have to let lies and bullshit from corporations wash over us, all we can do is complain on forums and still have to argue with Kool Aid drinkers. If bullshit over cloud gaming meant Microsoft couldn't get what they wanted then it is payback... Sometimes you gotta learn that actions have consequences. --- Also there is a huge amount of confusion about what "cloud" means. For instance most of Adobe Creative "Cloud" is a set of desktop applications with limited cloud integration. What is has in common with with real cloud products (Salesforce.com, Figma) is that you pay for it with a monthly subscription. Microsoft would love to just get your money month after month so you can play Assassin's Creed Episode 4215 and Call of Duty: Battle of Bakhmut and they don't care if you as a consumer know what kind of hardware it is running on but you'd better be sure the bean counters are aware that they could sell a "gaming PC" equivalent cloud instance to somebody in Azure for a dollar an hour so the economics can't possibly add up. Yet the cloud gaming bullshit still keeps rolling, at the last keynote NVIDIA's CEO was saying kids might game from the back seat of a car but what phone company is going to invest the last 800% of costs to get cell phone coverage in the last 20% of places?

bobthepanda 3y ago
The reason cloud gaming comes up because on the off chance someone makes it work, it's a very lucrative market with a high barrier to entry. Steam is still pretty much undisputed leader in today's games marketplace and it's a very comfortable position worth billions of dollars. And that's just on one platform.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  There are other angles. NVIDIA likes it because it could justify higher prices for graphics cards. Suppose somebody plays 2 hours a game a day and they can justify an $1800 graphics card for that. (Over 3 years it's about $1 an hour, I'd compare that to about $0.45 an hour for the cheapest Azure instance with a less capable GPU) 22 hours a day the card is doing nothing, if other people were gaming on it and it were training neural network models the rest of the time the card could be worth $21,600. It's a throwback to IBM mainframes at the worst but NVIDIA could easily conclude it can't afford to sell 40-series cards to gamers.

pwthornton 3y ago

I have access to Microsoft's xCloud as part of my Xbox Game Pass sub. I never use it. The lag is too great. I am sure certain kinds of games could work reasonably well on it, but overall it's just such a poor experience. I'd rather either bring a Switch while traveling or just play a game on my phone or iPad. I can't believe the deal might fall apart because Microsoft has a "dominant" position in basically a non-existent market that there is no evidence will ever become a market. There are cloud games that work well. If the deal falls apart over this, and not the actual concerns about MS owning huge IP, this regulation is truly broken. These are not the kinds of games that people buy PlayStations and Xboxes for. Jackbox party games? Sure. Awesome in the cloud. A turn-based strategy or RPG? Why not. Anything that requires reflexes? Not happening.

georgeecollins 3y ago

I think you are defining cloud gaming more restively then the cma. They meant games as a service, particularly when they say MSFT can offer games on Windows computers in a way no competitor can match (ie free).

CodeWriter23 3y ago

Cloud Gaming: a solution to network latency that depends on pushing even more data down the pipe.

akhosravian 3y ago

I think everything you said is true, but also that the reasoning from the CMA is sound: Microsoft believes in cloud gaming, and regulators have been caught with their pants down by thinking they knew better than industry. Repeatedly.

rospaya 3y ago

> I don't mind the complaint about CMA being undemocratic because it's a council of unelected bureaucrats Is there a country where the organization ruling about competition cases is elected directly?

908B64B197 3y ago

> I don't mind the complaint about CMA being undemocratic because it's a council of unelected bureaucrats, it's just trash-talk from someone that didn't get what they wanted; to be expected. Is it really "trash talk" if it's 100% true? > The idea of blocking a deal because maybe this technology will become much more popular one day and maybe Microsoft will be the success is IMO dumb. It's just a dumb argument. You have to realize that these unelected bureaucrats have to justify their pension funds and headcounts. They NEED to block something so they can brag they "protected" the UK against some "monopolistic evil foreing tech giant". If you can't innovate... Regulate!

willio58 3y ago

The reason may be dumb but I'm anti-monopoly enough that I simply don't care. Anything that even slightly hinders companies from completely removing any form of competition in the space makes me happy.