3 ms·

This is what it says in the report about cloud gaming: > In relation to cloud gaming services, Microsoft has a combination of assets that we consider is diffic

This is what it says in the report about cloud gaming: > In relation to cloud gaming services, Microsoft has a combination of assets that we consider is difficult for other cloud gaming service providers to match. By owning Windows, the OS for which the vast majority of PC games are designed, Microsoft could stream games from Windows servers without having to pay a Windows licensing fee or adapt games designed for Windows to an alternative OS. By having Xbox Cloud Gaming and Azure, Microsoft has both a short-term and a longer-term solution to host cloud gaming, leveraging its large and well distributed global cloud infrastructure to stream its games without having to pay a fee to third-party cloud platforms. And by having an existing console ecosystem, Microsoft has a range of popular games that it can offer. As such, we consider that Microsoft has a strong position in cloud gaming services and will remain an important competitor as the market expands and evolves. Essentially, they have a larger foothold in cloud gaming than any other competitor, and by controlling the software and some of the most popular platforms for gaming, they have a vast advantage over other opponents to the merger, e.g. Sony. Which makes sense. While I don't expect cloud gaming to overtake traditional local gaming in the short term, allowing Microsoft to buy some of the most popular franchises out there and the largest US publisher, may create an artificial behemoth in the field, impossible to overcome.

scarface74 4y ago
I hate to admit it. But that was a decently argued point that CMA made. I was thinking about how silly it was that they were worried about a “monopoly” on a market that doesn’t even really exist and most of my opinion was formed by both my usual prejudice about ignorant government officials and listening to Ben Thompson’s take (Stratechery). I didn’t even think about the Windows or Azure angle since I don’t use either.
pid-1 4y ago
Since this whole argument is untestable wild guessing: maybe there was a future in which Microsoft buying Activision pushed more companies to hedge against a possible MS monopoly by properly supporting Linux, like Valve has been doing for the past years.
- waboremo 4y ago
  Right, like how people unanimously supported Stadia because it was a Linux hedge against Microsoft's Windows cloud dominance. They've extrapolated past experiences in the industry to understand what is likely to happen in the future. Microsoft buying large publishers won't mean some tidal wave of others wanting to push Linux instead, it would be a securing of Windows/Xbox. Microsoft would also likely pull their games from Steam, why bother when you own two publishing storefronts. There goes more games. Valve is correct in hedging their bets against Microsoft because their entire ecosystem still relies on Windows continued tolerance (and incompetence) towards them. However studios and most publishers have zero reason to care, they go where the most users are and therefore wouldn't join some hypothetical hedge against Windows.
- isitmadeofglass 4y ago
  [dead]

scarface74 4y ago

I hate to admit it. But that was a decently argued point that CMA made. I was thinking about how silly it was that they were worried about a “monopoly” on a market that doesn’t even really exist and most of my opinion was formed by both my usual prejudice about ignorant government officials and listening to Ben Thompson’s take (Stratechery). I didn’t even think about the Windows or Azure angle since I don’t use either.

pid-1 4y ago

Since this whole argument is untestable wild guessing: maybe there was a future in which Microsoft buying Activision pushed more companies to hedge against a possible MS monopoly by properly supporting Linux, like Valve has been doing for the past years.

waboremo 4y ago
Right, like how people unanimously supported Stadia because it was a Linux hedge against Microsoft's Windows cloud dominance. They've extrapolated past experiences in the industry to understand what is likely to happen in the future. Microsoft buying large publishers won't mean some tidal wave of others wanting to push Linux instead, it would be a securing of Windows/Xbox. Microsoft would also likely pull their games from Steam, why bother when you own two publishing storefronts. There goes more games. Valve is correct in hedging their bets against Microsoft because their entire ecosystem still relies on Windows continued tolerance (and incompetence) towards them. However studios and most publishers have zero reason to care, they go where the most users are and therefore wouldn't join some hypothetical hedge against Windows.
isitmadeofglass 4y ago
[dead]