6 ms·

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 acco

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
- Hamuko 3y ago
  >You had to sub + pay for the game too. You didn't. You just had to sub to get access to the "free" games + play at resolutions higher than 4K + other stuff. After you bought the game, you could just stream it at 1080p.
- capableweb 3y ago
  > 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. It's also incredibly irrelevant, Google is not the ones being investigated here, and Stadia has also been shut down so it's not relevant at all how much better or worse it is. The question is not which platform is better or worse, but if Microsoft could potentially abuse their position if the merger goes through. I recommend you to either read the final report (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/644939aa529eda000c3b0525/Microsoft_Activision_Final_Report_.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/644939aa529ed...) or the summary of the final report (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6448f377814c66000c8d067f/Microsoft-Activision_FR_Summary.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6448f377814c6...). Probably the summary is a bit easier to digest, as it's 20 pages rather than 418 pages, but it has all the information you need to understand the case, as most news sources don't go into much depth.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    Is is Microsoft's fault that they don't have any competent competition? It's not like they somehow squeezed Stadia out of the market...
    - Karunamon 3y ago
      No, but that's not the regulator's problem either. It's not as if there is some sacrosanct right for companies to merge that is being abrogated. The entire existence of a company is at the pleasure of government.
      - Zpalmtree 3y ago
golergka 3y ago
> Microsoft already has a majority of the market. You didn't address the point of parent comment, which is, it's not really a market. It's trying to become a market, but so far is just a small niche where companies lose money.
- capableweb 3y ago
  If you as a consumer can purchase a service without any special insider agreements with the provider, it's a market already, no matter how small or big it is. And since Microsoft already has a estimated 60-70% market share of this existing market, making them have a bigger hold over the market will make it harder to others to enter it, and they'll potentially abuse their position.
  - Aunche 3y ago
    Of course the size of the market matters. Just because you have a 100% monopoly on Uber for haircuts doesn't mean you have a particularly dangerous monopoly. People can continue to game on consoles and PC just fine.
    - capableweb 3y ago
      Yeah, obviously it does matter if there is literally no competitors, but that's not the case here. There are competitors in the space already. One major difference between how the US and Europe views monopolies is that most of Europe tries to prevent even the formation of them (exceptions apply), while the US tries to prevent "dangerous" monopolies, while allowing monopolies themselves. It could be useful to shift the perspective if you're used to the US one, when looking at decisions made by European agencies like the CMA.
      - Aunche 3y ago
        >It could be useful to shift the perspective if you're used to the US one, when looking at decisions made by European agencies like the CMA. Sure. On the other hand, it could be useful to listen to Microsoft's perspective on being obstructive to business rather than accusing them of "whining" given that Europe lags behind in technological innovation despite being similarly well educated.
snowski3 3y ago
This information is incorrect though. It suggests that everyone subscribing to Xbox Game Pass Ultimate is doing so for cloud gaming, which is obviously nuts.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > It suggests that everyone subscribing to Xbox Game Pass Ultimate is doing so for cloud gaming, which is obviously nuts. It does not. It says that Microsoft plans on using extremely popular content to boost their cloud platform. Not even Microsoft is denying that: > Microsoft submitted that, given the five-year period captured by the LTV, any incremental growth of Game Pass is being captured in the LTV calculation. And they admit that they will be doing it, so they will capture more cloud gaming market and eventually increase profits: > On the other hand, CoD’s addition to Game Pass may cannibalise some of the B2P sales of CoD. In its valuation model, Microsoft estimated this cannibalisation to be []%, [].617 The fact that Microsoft is nonetheless adopting this strategy suggests that it expects it to be profitable in the long run. This would also apply to overall revenue from customers switching from PlayStation to Xbox.
  - aardvarkr 3y ago
    They own “60-70% market share” in large part due to the failure of every other cloud gaming company to gain meaningful usage (Google Stadia and Amazon Luna) and in small part because the CMA inflated the count of active users to include EVERY Xbox game pass ultimate subscriber, regardless of whether they’ve touched it. Luna is available to every prime member yet they aren’t counted in that MAU calculation. Only Microsoft is treated differently.
    - manuelabeledo 3y ago
      Let's put it this way. If you have Game Pass, would you use its cloud gaming service, or would you go out of your way and play in Luna, which by the way, does not have as many games? Also, Amazon does not have the software platform, nor the hardware, to compete with Microsoft (Windows, Xbox). Microsoft could and does bundle a Xbox app in Windows, which also features their cloud platform very prominently [0]. Essentially, every single Windows user is being introduced to Microsoft's very own cloud platform. It's not that Microsoft is "treated differently", they are indeed different. [0] https://www.xbox.com/en-US/apps/xbox-app-for-pc https://www.xbox.com/en-US/apps/xbox-app-for-pc
judge2020 3y ago
> 60-70% of global cloud gaming services Their point is that cloud gaming is likely way less than 1%, maybe even 0.01% of any gaming activity. The cloud gaming experience still isn't 100% there in terms of latency, so it only makes sense to play single player games, and then most people who have an xbox just use their existing hardware rather than pay Microsoft to play it remotely.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  Big software companies consciously abuse the word "cloud" to describe conventional software sold by subscription (most of Adobe's Creative "Cloud".) What Microsoft is dominating is the market for game subscription services and they, as part of the industry, are not clearly articulating what it is, partly to ride along with the bullshit (When VR and AR got replaced with XR I'm sure that Dilbert's boss was asking "What's our XR strategy?")
  - RajT88 3y ago
    "Cloud" commonly is used to mean, "Somewhere, not here" in terms of where the thing is running or is stored. It's also typically used by the lazy or non-technical.
- deelowe 3y ago
  In this case cloud gaming is all of game pass, not just streaming.
  - logistark 3y ago
    In this case is clearly stated if you read the report as xCloud, not Gamepass. Even they metion about the latency, and metion as competetitors Nvidia Geforce Now and Playstation Now
- piva00 3y ago
  Cloud gaming = paying a subscription for access to play games, Blizzard's Battle.net, Microsoft's Game Pass and Xbox Online subscriptions, etc. It's not streaming gaming.
logistark 3y ago
Microsoft have in 2021 the 60-70% of global cloud gaming services representing 1-3% of the gaming industry. Is true that this number have been growing, but anyway the reasons that are using is backed by the idea that ultimately the Cloud Gaming Services will take over all the industry. But this is just especulation, and probably even if this is true this would happen even without Microsoft buying Activision.
- pwthornton 3y ago
  It's speculation based on marketing hype that isn't found in the product. I have access to xCloud. The lag is unreal. I don't see how they will get the lag down to an acceptable level for the kinds of games that Activision makes. Cloud gaming makes sense for party games, turn-based games, anything that doesn't require reflexes. This leaves out everything Activision makes. There is no evidence that the lag issues with cloud gaming are solvable.
aardvarkr 3y ago
What’s funny is that every cloud gaming provider is in favor of this merger. Microsoft tried to give away access to all of its games to show good faith. Acquiring game licenses are the biggest barrier to entry for competitors so the competition was wildly supportive. Now they get nothing, Microsoft gets to keep its IP to itself, and the cloud gaming market continues to struggle.
pwthornton 3y ago
You are missing the point. Cloud gaming is not a thing. Almost no one plays it. The experience is terrible. MS only has that position because it is thrown in as part of Xbox Game Pass. No one is buying it on their own. I have it as part of Game Pass. It's terrible. I never use it, outside of once or twice a year to verify it still sucks. I am not convinced that cloud gaming is anywhere near being a thing. We could be talking several decades away before they figure out a way to get lag under control.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  > The experience is terrible. That is an implementation issue. I was on Stadia (r.i.p.) and the experience was superior to consoles: pure plug and play with no slow software updates getting in the way of gaming.
  - georgemcbay 3y ago
    I'd say its more of an infrastructure issue than an implementation issue, at least in the US where consistent uninterrupted broadband access is still kind of a giant clusterfuck in many places due to de facto regional monopolies and ISPs not feeling much pressure due to real competition. No amount of delivery tech is going to make up for the infrastructure being unfit for purpose in so many areas.
    - pwthornton 3y ago
      I am symmetrical gigabit fiber internet with an Eero 6 Pro in the U.S., and the lag is quite robust. I don't see a way of solving that. And, as you say, a lot of people don't have access to high-quality internet, and there is no reason to believe they will any time soon.
      - selectodude 3y ago
        Wireless internet will always make lag unbearable for that kind of stuff.

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

Hamuko 3y ago
>You had to sub + pay for the game too. You didn't. You just had to sub to get access to the "free" games + play at resolutions higher than 4K + other stuff. After you bought the game, you could just stream it at 1080p.
capableweb 3y ago
> 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. It's also incredibly irrelevant, Google is not the ones being investigated here, and Stadia has also been shut down so it's not relevant at all how much better or worse it is. The question is not which platform is better or worse, but if Microsoft could potentially abuse their position if the merger goes through. I recommend you to either read the final report (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/644939aa529eda000c3b0525/Microsoft_Activision_Final_Report_.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/644939aa529ed...) or the summary of the final report (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6448f377814c66000c8d067f/Microsoft-Activision_FR_Summary.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6448f377814c6...). Probably the summary is a bit easier to digest, as it's 20 pages rather than 418 pages, but it has all the information you need to understand the case, as most news sources don't go into much depth.
- qwytw 3y ago
  Is is Microsoft's fault that they don't have any competent competition? It's not like they somehow squeezed Stadia out of the market...
  - Karunamon 3y ago
    No, but that's not the regulator's problem either. It's not as if there is some sacrosanct right for companies to merge that is being abrogated. The entire existence of a company is at the pleasure of government.
    - Zpalmtree 3y ago

golergka 3y ago

> Microsoft already has a majority of the market. You didn't address the point of parent comment, which is, it's not really a market. It's trying to become a market, but so far is just a small niche where companies lose money.

capableweb 3y ago
If you as a consumer can purchase a service without any special insider agreements with the provider, it's a market already, no matter how small or big it is. And since Microsoft already has a estimated 60-70% market share of this existing market, making them have a bigger hold over the market will make it harder to others to enter it, and they'll potentially abuse their position.
- Aunche 3y ago
  Of course the size of the market matters. Just because you have a 100% monopoly on Uber for haircuts doesn't mean you have a particularly dangerous monopoly. People can continue to game on consoles and PC just fine.
  - capableweb 3y ago
    Yeah, obviously it does matter if there is literally no competitors, but that's not the case here. There are competitors in the space already. One major difference between how the US and Europe views monopolies is that most of Europe tries to prevent even the formation of them (exceptions apply), while the US tries to prevent "dangerous" monopolies, while allowing monopolies themselves. It could be useful to shift the perspective if you're used to the US one, when looking at decisions made by European agencies like the CMA.
    - Aunche 3y ago
      >It could be useful to shift the perspective if you're used to the US one, when looking at decisions made by European agencies like the CMA. Sure. On the other hand, it could be useful to listen to Microsoft's perspective on being obstructive to business rather than accusing them of "whining" given that Europe lags behind in technological innovation despite being similarly well educated.

snowski3 3y ago

This information is incorrect though. It suggests that everyone subscribing to Xbox Game Pass Ultimate is doing so for cloud gaming, which is obviously nuts.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
> It suggests that everyone subscribing to Xbox Game Pass Ultimate is doing so for cloud gaming, which is obviously nuts. It does not. It says that Microsoft plans on using extremely popular content to boost their cloud platform. Not even Microsoft is denying that: > Microsoft submitted that, given the five-year period captured by the LTV, any incremental growth of Game Pass is being captured in the LTV calculation. And they admit that they will be doing it, so they will capture more cloud gaming market and eventually increase profits: > On the other hand, CoD’s addition to Game Pass may cannibalise some of the B2P sales of CoD. In its valuation model, Microsoft estimated this cannibalisation to be []%, [].617 The fact that Microsoft is nonetheless adopting this strategy suggests that it expects it to be profitable in the long run. This would also apply to overall revenue from customers switching from PlayStation to Xbox.
- aardvarkr 3y ago
  They own “60-70% market share” in large part due to the failure of every other cloud gaming company to gain meaningful usage (Google Stadia and Amazon Luna) and in small part because the CMA inflated the count of active users to include EVERY Xbox game pass ultimate subscriber, regardless of whether they’ve touched it. Luna is available to every prime member yet they aren’t counted in that MAU calculation. Only Microsoft is treated differently.
  - manuelabeledo 3y ago
    Let's put it this way. If you have Game Pass, would you use its cloud gaming service, or would you go out of your way and play in Luna, which by the way, does not have as many games? Also, Amazon does not have the software platform, nor the hardware, to compete with Microsoft (Windows, Xbox). Microsoft could and does bundle a Xbox app in Windows, which also features their cloud platform very prominently [0]. Essentially, every single Windows user is being introduced to Microsoft's very own cloud platform. It's not that Microsoft is "treated differently", they are indeed different. [0] https://www.xbox.com/en-US/apps/xbox-app-for-pc https://www.xbox.com/en-US/apps/xbox-app-for-pc

judge2020 3y ago

> 60-70% of global cloud gaming services Their point is that cloud gaming is likely way less than 1%, maybe even 0.01% of any gaming activity. The cloud gaming experience still isn't 100% there in terms of latency, so it only makes sense to play single player games, and then most people who have an xbox just use their existing hardware rather than pay Microsoft to play it remotely.

PaulHoule 3y ago
Big software companies consciously abuse the word "cloud" to describe conventional software sold by subscription (most of Adobe's Creative "Cloud".) What Microsoft is dominating is the market for game subscription services and they, as part of the industry, are not clearly articulating what it is, partly to ride along with the bullshit (When VR and AR got replaced with XR I'm sure that Dilbert's boss was asking "What's our XR strategy?")
- RajT88 3y ago
  "Cloud" commonly is used to mean, "Somewhere, not here" in terms of where the thing is running or is stored. It's also typically used by the lazy or non-technical.
deelowe 3y ago
In this case cloud gaming is all of game pass, not just streaming.
- logistark 3y ago
  In this case is clearly stated if you read the report as xCloud, not Gamepass. Even they metion about the latency, and metion as competetitors Nvidia Geforce Now and Playstation Now
piva00 3y ago
Cloud gaming = paying a subscription for access to play games, Blizzard's Battle.net, Microsoft's Game Pass and Xbox Online subscriptions, etc. It's not streaming gaming.

logistark 3y ago

Microsoft have in 2021 the 60-70% of global cloud gaming services representing 1-3% of the gaming industry. Is true that this number have been growing, but anyway the reasons that are using is backed by the idea that ultimately the Cloud Gaming Services will take over all the industry. But this is just especulation, and probably even if this is true this would happen even without Microsoft buying Activision.

pwthornton 3y ago
It's speculation based on marketing hype that isn't found in the product. I have access to xCloud. The lag is unreal. I don't see how they will get the lag down to an acceptable level for the kinds of games that Activision makes. Cloud gaming makes sense for party games, turn-based games, anything that doesn't require reflexes. This leaves out everything Activision makes. There is no evidence that the lag issues with cloud gaming are solvable.

aardvarkr 3y ago

What’s funny is that every cloud gaming provider is in favor of this merger. Microsoft tried to give away access to all of its games to show good faith. Acquiring game licenses are the biggest barrier to entry for competitors so the competition was wildly supportive. Now they get nothing, Microsoft gets to keep its IP to itself, and the cloud gaming market continues to struggle.

pwthornton 3y ago

You are missing the point. Cloud gaming is not a thing. Almost no one plays it. The experience is terrible. MS only has that position because it is thrown in as part of Xbox Game Pass. No one is buying it on their own. I have it as part of Game Pass. It's terrible. I never use it, outside of once or twice a year to verify it still sucks. I am not convinced that cloud gaming is anywhere near being a thing. We could be talking several decades away before they figure out a way to get lag under control.

sangnoir 3y ago
> The experience is terrible. That is an implementation issue. I was on Stadia (r.i.p.) and the experience was superior to consoles: pure plug and play with no slow software updates getting in the way of gaming.
- georgemcbay 3y ago
  I'd say its more of an infrastructure issue than an implementation issue, at least in the US where consistent uninterrupted broadband access is still kind of a giant clusterfuck in many places due to de facto regional monopolies and ISPs not feeling much pressure due to real competition. No amount of delivery tech is going to make up for the infrastructure being unfit for purpose in so many areas.
  - pwthornton 3y ago
    I am symmetrical gigabit fiber internet with an Eero 6 Pro in the U.S., and the lag is quite robust. I don't see a way of solving that. And, as you say, a lot of people don't have access to high-quality internet, and there is no reason to believe they will any time soon.
    - selectodude 3y ago
      Wireless internet will always make lag unbearable for that kind of stuff.