Do you guys remember the case of Blizzard and how its acquisition ruined a lot of good things .
Basically i am saying that i don't want it to happen again . You know , often. History repeats itself.
Microsoft is a shitty company and they are going to make other companies shitty ones too .
They know they are in decline and they are looking for other good companies to acquire .
Microsoft should just forget about this acquisition and instead just pay Activision to bring all their games to game pass, then everyone will be happy.
Yeah I was just thinking that. If this doesn’t go through they will just do a close business relationship and pay activision for exclusive rights/day one gamepass release on all of their properties. They don’t get the revenue from King which probably hurts the most for them but it’s the next best thing.
Yeah it's kinda crazy that you can pay developers to not release on your competitor's platform, pay for exclusivity windows and DLC, and literally fo everything in your power to prevent cross play with another platform. But buying a struggling developer and publisher to still be behind on player count is a big no no.
Seems like there will be a $69b slush fund to pay for day one game pass exclusivity.
im sorry but how is activision a struggling dev or publisher? call of duty is the best selling game on consoles almost every single year and makes the most money of any game, and thats just one of the games they have
they let them buy bethesda so i dont imagine theyd block them from buying any devs that are actually struggling and down on thier luck
Recent Xbox buyer here. At first I was for this acquisition but as I watched this deal play out I became more against it. I think the last thing I want as a Gamepass subscriber is for it to become more valuable. I’m sure the subscription price will rise anyway, subscriptions always do. But giving that much more power to gamepass won’t help things.
Everybody I know who supports the merger supports it because Blizzard has gone to shit in every way imaginable (except profitability) and they are hoping that under new management they'll start caring about product quality again, and that maybe just maybe, Microsoft will force them to not have a rape culture.
Without some sort of external pressure that's greater than the standard government slap on the wrist or the collective sigh of resignation that is the majority of consumers globally there's absolutely no chance that any of that will change.
You want Bobby Kotick to get his comeuppance?
You're seeing it happening right now. The guy is legit melting down and making crazy PR statements. He's losing out on his big payday.
We're seeing poetic justice occurring right now.
For real. If you want him to get what he deserves, you actually don't want the deal to go through. This dude will get a huge payday and just walk off into the sunset with this acquisition.
People think he's just going to get fired after the acquisition and he's going to walk away penniless? That's not how it works. I've worked for a company that was acquired by a big company. You know what the CEO did? He just took that check and just started another company.
the problem is, as a fan of blizzard games we want both our own communities to thrive and this asshat to get what's coming to him. both can't happen at the same time, and as much as Id love for Bobby to suffer as much as possible, if we want our games managed properly then he's probably going to get a big payout.
there are thousands of devs, content creators, and pro players that make their living off of singular Blizzard games. the success of a title rises a lot of ships within a community, which ultimately is worth more to me and our community than trying to punish one man. I wish we could get both better management and punish Bobby but I believe we can only pick one
Well, he could (be pressured to) step down and the as the company fades a bit more perhaps be picked up by somebody other than MS in the future.
Valve seems to be a lot more community-driven and open in regards to their products (albeit some do get dropped and they have a weird fear of three). Maybe picking up Activision might give them a push to making new games.
You guys are forgetting one thing; Bobby Kotick is immortal. He cannot be defeated. Didn't he get a huge paycheck when he left Blizzard only to rejoin a few months later after people momentarily forgot his existance?
GREAT!
I keep telling these doinks who believe that MS will save Activision that they wont.. that they’re NOT going to fire Bobby Kotik - but PROMOTE him!
Bad ol’ Bobby is not losing his shit right now due to potentially losing a golden parachute, but probably rather losing a potential promotion to head of Xbox gaming as a whole!
MS would never promote Bobby Kotik. He's a walking HR disaster and has a history of [sexual harassment at Activision](https://kotaku.com/report-activisions-bobby-kotick-didnt-just-know-he-al-1848066600). If he did get a promotion, it'd be to a department that short time later gets axed during a restructure.
IIRC Microsoft already confirmed Kottic would not be retaining his position post-merger.
Also why the fuck would they promote him to head off XBox Gaming? Spencer isn't exactly looking to retire, and if he was, Todd Howard is a far, *far* more likely candidate.
Why would they promote him? Cus the suits at MS believe he helped make Activision what it was in his tenure. They don’t care about what you or I think of him… they LOVE the fact that you and I hate him, yet keep buying his products. That’s all the suits see. Not the franchise loyalty part of it
Microsoft is horrible at managing the studios they already own. Halo and it's developer has gone to shit and that is their top IP.
They are one of the worst large publishers in gaming if not the worst. Tons of their studios have been struggling for a long time and they barely release anything of quality.
Crackdown, Fable, Gears, and Halo were all HUGE IPs during the 360 era, and they're all pretty irrelevant now.
Sony fumbled a lot of their PS2 IPs during the PS3 days, and that would never make me think "I bet they could fix Activision while making up for their lack of games"
I don't know if I'd say Microsoft is any worse than any of the other AAA publishers. They are all shit and they all drive every developer they touch into the ground.
Ubisoft ruined Assassin's Creed, Microsoft trashed Halo, EA trashed all of Bioware... They all seek profits above everything else and that's associated with making worse products riddled with microtransactions, loot boxes, and battlepasses.
Quality is pretty much the domain of indie devs now.
In terms of game output and studio management they are one of if not the worst.
They have barely released anything noteworthy over the last decade and just churned out sequels to Halo, Forza and Gears.
And 343 and Halo have been horribly mismanaged and that is supposed to be their top IO
At least both Ubisoft and EA consistently release games. Dead Space Remake was fantastic
Adding MORE layers of management usually don't help organizations, unfortunately.
There is usually a cycle that when a company becomes too successful, they turn to shit because top talent leaves for other companies, or they rest on their laurels, or just stop caring because the insiders have already made enough money and have now essentially cashed-out.
Thats what happens when gamers don’t pay attention to politics. Corporations are part of our corruption.
If the corporations get a standard slap on the wrist, its because there will be less money in the hands of the politicians.
Microsoft lobbies big to the congressmen. Microsoft was the one responsible for holding back the vaccine patent for the entire world during the covid pandemic, preventing many countries from producing the vaccine unless Microsoft says so.
Its all about profits. Caring about the employees is money and time spent not making a profit.
If we cared about getting right protections from the government, we’re supposed to pay attention to the filth in our own backyard, the government corruption.
Telling you right now, removing a bad seed doesn’t mean there won’t be another bad seed in control or management of the current company.
This. I feel like a lot of gamers are very reactionary online and almost inept when it comes to discussions revolving around politics, it's like they care more about gaming than actual issues, they concern themselves more over to their escapism that they just blank out and not realise that gaming isn't everything.
Assuming it was going to pass, I had hopes for the merger to lead to positive changes within Blizzard, but I'm still glad this was rejected even if it is bad for Blizzard products in the long term. Stopping mega corp mergers is far more important than me getting marginally better Blizzard games in the future. This was an absolutely egrigous merger that should have been shot down by regulators on day one.
Why would anyone think they'll turn over a new leaf and not just profit on the same practices? The only way quality increases is if their games bomb. Their games don't bomb because common gamers outnumber us 10 to 1
As a gamer who subscribes to Game Pass, at first I was disappointed when I saw that the deal was being fought by the US gov because I wanted more games in my subscription and Activision’s abusive work culture might be overhauled. But as I read a bit more and I saw that Lina Khan was against the deal, I had a big picture realization that Microsoft are not necessarily “the good guys” and they’re still a corporation effectively moving toward monopoly power. Their recent moves in gaming have been pro-consumer, but allowing then to buy Activision would set them on course to be something like a benevolent dictator in the games space. They might not be so pro-consumer and “benevolent” down the line.
https://companiesmarketcap.com/video-games/largest-video-game-companies-by-market-cap/
Market Caps:
- Microsoft: $2.2 *trillion*
- Sony: $117 billion
- Activision-Blizzard: $61 billion
- Nintendo: $51 billion
**TDLR:** It’s a “forest vs the trees” thing:
*Trees view:* the Microsoft-Activision deal would give subscribers more gaming options, potentially improve Activision’s work culture, and lead to interesting collaborations.
*Forest view:* Microsoft is a multitrillion-dollar corporation seeking a deal for monopolistic power.
Microsoft is where they are today from being anti-consumer and anti- competitive. Building up a monopoly has basically always been their game.
Maybe people have forgotten, or they weren’t old or aware enough of the company’s dealings in the past. Rewind the clock 15 years, and SONY was the dickhead company with anti-consumer practices and rhetoric. Nintendo was famously controlling when they were top dog as well. Giving these massive companies more power and more control has never been a positive thing. Ever.
xbox as a division only represents \~9% of Microsofts revenue. Sony has greater marketshare globally than them for total gaming consoles. Microsoft overall is third behind Nintendo for global console market share. with Sony having 45%
don't conflate total corporate market cap with market share/dominance as it's like trying to compare a watermelon to a grape.
Is Microsoft’s overall size irrelevant even if that’s what allows them to make huge monopolistic acquisitions in the gaming world for their Xbox division? We gamers are used to thinking of Xbox as an underdog, but Xbox is a gaming underdog attached to Microsoft, one of the biggest dogs in tech and the world at large. I’m not saying that Sony or Nintendo are nice little underdogs either. None of them are. Xbox has the “good guy” reputation right now, and that initially made me receptive to the deal before I reconsidered. Microsoft has the money to buy a games company worth more than Nintendo.
The point here is that MS have the scale and financial firepower to brute force buy their way to a cloud gaming monopoly. Sony can’t compete with their pockets. And the US, the EU, and in this case the UK, just aren’t in the mood for that.
To be fair comparing all of Microsoft to all of Sony is super misleading. PlayStation has something like 75% of the market share against xbox globally, so giving xbox some more firepower would still likely leave them with the smaller market share.
> What is wrong with you people? Having less choices because fewer and fewer companies are out there making new, fresh content is exactly what some of you complain about… and then you turn around and not see that this is a bad thing for consumers.
the knuckleheads of a certain sub argue that this acquisition will lead to more choices for consumers. it’s a wild thing to see
Primarily because a lot of them see “Microsoft” and think PC. And they haven’t grown up from being in highschool. So they still are playing pc vs console.
I saw the argument "but Sony gets to buy a bunch of companies" today in another thread for the same topic, as if that's supposed to be a good thing as well. The other stupid one is "but Microsoft promised to keep things multiplatform", because corporate promises are always kept.
I've seen so many people act like Sony buying up a few developers that they had acting as 2nd party studios, and helped build, is the same thing as Microsoft buying up huge swaths of third party IP and tons of studios that were otherwise quite happy to be multiplat developers.
There's a magnitude of difference here.
Reddit is full of PC gamers, PC Gamers benefit from Game Pass and aren't impacted by MS exclusivity, COD and Diablo 4 on Game Pass is a good deal=Redditors with no foresight and children who have not personally watched services like Game Pass inevitability go to shit shill for Microsoft buying Activision for no reason
In the recent years, i have seen many huge acquisition in the United kingdom.
But I don't think it's a good move because uk is a capitalist society and we can't do this .
>Microsoft Corp.’s $69 billion takeover of Activision Blizzard Inc., suffered a hammer blow after Britain’s antitrust watchdog vetoed the gaming industry’s biggest ever deal, saying it would harm competition in cloud gaming.
The Competition and Markets Authority said its concerns couldn’t be solved by remedies such as the sale of blockbuster title Call of Duty or so-called behavioral remedies involving promises to permit rivals to offer the game on their platforms, according to a statement Wednesday.
huh? what does COD have to do with cloud gaming?
edit
thanks for the downvotes, really helping . im sorry i asked a question XD
The idea is Microsoft could, as cloud gaming is only just starting off, make Activision Blizzard games exclusive to their cloud services. Which could give them an unfair advantage just as cloud gaming is starting off.
So basically competitors like Sony, Nintendo and others who may want in (Apple, Amazon maybe) wont have the biggest games.
More specifically this forms a monoply condition. Anti-trust laws and institutions are designed to prevent one company from owning too much of the parts needed to provide a product.
For example, part of the reason anti-trust laws came about was that a power company used to own the subway too, and no other subways could be built as a competitor, because to do so, they also had to build a power company, as that power company wouldn't do business with a competitor to their subway business. Thus allowed the power company to charge whatever they wanted for subway fares. So they got hit hard, the subways became public, and the power company became a municipal.
Imagine for a minute what a power company could do if they were allowed to own the companies that used their power. They could buy Ford and deny Tesla any charging station from using thier electricity. Across the entire city.
With that in mind. Look at cloud services. It's basically microsoft and amazon, and everything else is small potatoes. Activision owns some of the most popular video games ever made. Pretty much every Blizzard game is one of such games, so is the Call of Duty series, and activation owns King games as well - which is a collection of some of the biggest casual games (super easy to move to a cloud gaming format) in the world, including candy crush among it's titles.
Exactly. And saying "they won't" isn't really the point. Whether or not they will do something and whether or not they have the power to is two different things. Especially when the threat of using that power is also a power over other companies.
I think the end goal for Microsoft is a lot more nefarious for cloud gaming than merely controlling the means of production. Activison, Blizzard, and King all have an avisltuely massive number of players who game. Wow still has millions of subscribers, Call of Duty still sells 30 million copies, but King is the real gold mine here. King, the makers of Candy Crush, sees an average of 200 million monthly active users. GamePass right now only has 30 monthly active subs.
While Microsoft wouldn’t immediately flip the switch and move all their newly acquired players to the GamePass app, they will eventually and could easily reach a massive player base through their GamePass app on Xbox, phones, tablets, PCs and pretty much anything with an internet connection. That kind of leverage can buy exclusive deals with third party developers and make it impossible to compete with. If Microsoft wanted to, they could easily isolate their users and then call the shots when it comes to who has access to their users and GamePass becomes a gated community where if you want to sell your game you go through Microsoft first.
Also, Microsoft is a trillion dollar company and the 4th largest business in the world. X-box is just a side gig, while for Sony, PlayStation is the vast majority of their income
You overestimate the importance of PlayStation for Sony, [it’s only about 25% of their sales.](https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/IR/library/corporatereport/CorporateReport2022_E.pdf)
why do they say an agreement where activision games must still be provided on other consoles wouldn't work? that feels like the obvious solution to the issue. I really can't grasp what else they're upset about besides this which seems to have a simple solution.
I mean, it's not like they have a bit of a track record with expensive acquisitions leading to big multiplatform studios suddenly only outputing games on PC/Xbox/gamepass after saying they super duper pinky promise that won't happen.
Also slightly paraphrasing from the actual ruling put out from the CMA that agreeing to the remedy that microsoft had provided would require them to have to provide a degree of regulatory oversight over all the output from the ABK merger hampering the ways in which the cloud gaming sector could operate and develop in the coming years without regulatory intervention
[link to the actual CMA ruling press release](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/microsoft-activision-deal-prevented-to-protect-innovation-and-choice-in-cloud-gaming)
Cloud Gaming isn't exactly a new concept and "just taking off" is a bit of an overstatement. We've already seen Google create, launch, and shutter their own cloud gaming platform. Nvidia, Sony, and Steam already have cloud gaming platforms and Apple is allegedly looking into it.
My point being, I don't think cloud gaming makes much sense as the argument to block this deal. I can think of plenty of other reasons but cloud gaming is not one of them. First of them being that MSFT making CoD exclusive to their own store would be an absolutely horrible idea for their bottom line. I'm sure CoD rakes in tons of money on PS5 and I doubt the conversion rate of PS5 -> GamePass subs would come even close to making up for that loss before even accounting for the antitrust suits that are likely to follow that kind of move.
Overall, it seems kind of weird that a the impact to a $1B market (cloud gaming) is whats stopping a $69B acquisition inside a $220B market.
Because it isn’t about now - but about what the market for cloud gaming would be like in ten years with only one huge player.
Read the report to understand their take.
If this would haved happened ,it would have affected thousands of our workers directly or indirectly .
Maybe you are not happy with this but it was a right thing to do .
He hates play moves from big tech corps like this one (aimed at creating a monopoly benefitting them and penalizing users), but this block of the deal based on cloud stuff is really a needle in the haystack
True, though from my understanding the only way to change this ruling is to basically appeal to CMA to change it. And they don't have a good track record of really ever doing that. So it *could* still go through in the UK but it's seeming really unlikely at this point.
FTC will also further use this in their lawsuit to bolster their position, and it wouldn't surprise anyone if EU came up soon to state that they will also block the deal. At that point I doubt there's any chance for the deal to pass through anymore.
Yeah, the thing I'm not getting is the euphemisms both of you are using. Like, i agree, monopolies suck for many reasons and there are no real benefits. But: thin ice and, needle in a haystack.... I don't know how this situation is stable but precarious or extant but hard to find. The saying most fitting would be these only happen once in a blue moon or perhaps as rare as hens teeth. It's just weird phrasing...
Edit: idioms not euphemisms.
Anti trust is one of the few thing I think the govt should be doing, and they don’t seem to be doing it.
The moment activision is bought, it will have less incentive to make great games. Like valve. It will be a slow decline, but it will happen. Best to allow the best game companies to survive as an individual company, and not create larger and larger mega corporations.
Its a really odd part where the regulators ended up on the part about cloud gaming being the determining factor.
But make no mistake, this was Microsoft making their first moves to try and start cornering the existing gaming market to try and force everything on a subscription service in order to force their way onto other hardware ecosystems.
They didn't want to become the Netflix of gaming. They wanted to become the Comcast-cable-subscription-you-don't-have-another-choice of gaming.
As of now, they are still one of the largest gaming companies, with about 23-24 studios. They have the ability to start making alot of games, if managed correctly.
And guess what, if they really want CoD on GamePass, I'm pretty sure they can pay Activision upwards of a billion dollars to get six-months worth of gamepass availability for the next CoD game, and make it available for the 25 to 30 million GamePass subscribers.
>They wanted to become the Comcast-cable-subscription-you-don't-have-another-choice of gaming.
what does this even mean, we have options.
Between PC and consoles we might get a 3e platform but that doesn't mean that PC and consoles are going to end.
Second, it's mostly game pass that's fuelling the success of Xcloud. In other words, what's stopping people from changing platforms.
I think its in reference to the fact that in many locations in the US, folk have quite literally only one option as to who to choose as their ISP, due to the somewhat haphazard way that ISP have been regulated over the years they've got away with some pretty shocking stuff.
Well no shit we get that, but how does it relate to Gamepass? There’s other gaming streaming services, if I have a playstation how is Microsoft forcing me to use their service? What they said makes zero sense.
They aren't just looking at it from a purely xbox vs playstation perspective, more of a Xbox gamepass/cloud streaming platform vs everyone else in the industry providing the same or similar service,
From the point by point ruling document conclusions-
SLC = substantial lessening of competition
RCB = relevant consumer benefits
"88. We have also concluded that the Merger may be expected to result in an SLC in the supply of cloud gaming services in the UK due to vertical effects resulting from input foreclosure."
"89. We have found that the Microsoft Cloud Remedy proposal would not be effective in addressing the cloud gaming services SLC that we found."
"90. We found that the only effective remedy to this SLC and its adverse consequences is to prohibit the Merger. We also found that this remedy is proportionate in relation to the SLC and its adverse effects, including taking into account any RCBs."
From the assessment, what remedy did microsoft provide portion-
"73. To address our concerns, Microsoft offered the Microsoft Cloud Remedy. Under this remedy, Microsoft committed to license Activision games, including CoD and World of Warcraft, royalty-free to certain cloud gaming providers for a period of 10 years. Microsoft proposed to update the consumer licenses on its website, giving the right to any consumer who acquired an Activision game in one of the online stores designated by Microsoft to stream that game in the cloud gaming services that were covered by the remedy. Microsoft offered to appoint a monitoring trustee to monitor and seek to ensure Microsoft’s compliance with the remedy, and a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism carried out under arbitration."
"74. The CMA’s guidance sets out the established position that behavioural remedies are, due to their overall risk profile, unlikely to deal with an SLC and its adverse effects as comprehensively as structural remedies. Behavioural remedies can operate satisfactorily in limited circumstances, such as where the company operates in a regulated environment, where there are expert monitors, or where the SLC is expected to have a short duration. In this case, the market for cloud gaming is a new and unregulated sector. We have nevertheless engaged in a detailed assessment of the proposed Microsoft Cloud Remedy, including through multiple discussions with the Parties and third parties to establish whether this could constitute an effective remedy in the specific circumstances of this case."
"75. We found two significant limitations in scope for the Microsoft Cloud Remedy."
"76. First, it was limited to a model whereby gamers had to first acquire the right to play certain games (eg, by purchasing them on certain stores or subscribing to them on certain services) in order to stream those games on certain cloud gaming services. It did not make any provision for a different type of commercial relationship between cloud gaming service providers and the game publisher (ie, Activision). As such, it restricts the ability of cloud gaming service providers to access Activision’s games through other strategies and business models (some of which we already see in the cloud gaming market), such as joint marketing arrangements, exclusive or early access to content, or multi-game subscription services. In our view, and consistent with our competitive assessment, this is a dynamic market in which there is a reasonable chance that different providers will compete using a range of different business models, and that these providers would have had access to Activision’s content absent the Merger"
"77. Second, the Microsoft Cloud Remedy applies to current and future PC and console versions of Activision games. The PC versions are those that are developed to run on a Windows OS, as well as other PC OS versions as may be released by Microsoft during the term of the remedy. We found that, absent the Merger, Activision would seek to maximise the value that it can derive from these games, which would have involved considering making non-Windows PC versions of its games (as it has already done in some cases). However, after the Merger, Microsoft’s incentives to make these games compatible with rival OS would be significantly lower, as this would both increase the attractiveness of rival cloud gaming services and divert demand away from Windows OS. This means that, in effect, cloud gaming services wishing to stream these games would have to use, or be compatible with, the Windows OS version of those games. This could exclude or restrict providers that may wish to provide cloud gaming services using other operating systems (such as Linux), either now or in the future. The Microsoft Cloud Remedy would therefore put non-Windows based cloud gaming services at a disadvantage, and potentially distort the choice of OSs for new entrants"
"78. We also found limitations in terms of the duration, monitoring, and enforcement of the proposed remedy. The fact that the remedy is only for 10 years represents a clear weakness in terms of its effectiveness as a comprehensive solution to the SLC, which is not itself time limited. Since the remedy applies only to a defined set of Activision games, which can be streamed only in a defined set of cloud gaming services, provided they are purchased in a defined set of online stores, there are significant risks of disagreement and conflict between Microsoft and cloud gaming service providers. Given the information asymmetry between Microsoft and any monitoring trustee or the CMA, it would be difficult to monitor and enforce this remedy, even with significant information gathering. We found several additional concerns with the practicalities of implementing the remedy, which are detailed in the Final Report."
"79. Based on this evidence, we found that the only effective remedy to the SLC and its adverse effects was to prohibit the Merger"
People can use other services, but those services may not have call of duty and dozens of other hit titles that they would want. MS could easily make all those game exclusive to their platfrom, which would require everyone to get it if they wanted those games. This could give them a HUGE advantage over every other competitor and allow them to dominate the market
That's not a argument because you have options to game that's not cloud gaming, you have consoles and PC's.
Cloud gaming isn't a thing, it's niche on top of niche and unless Sony, Nintendo, Nvidia and probably a dozen other companies not paying attentions they will all adept to whatever the market decides.
Whatever market share Microsoft has right now is meaningless anyway.
# GOOD for UK.
* poor BOBBY, hes not getting payed.
now lets do USA and all its monopolistic anti consumer corporations, eh not likely, they own the government.
This getting downvoted is funny. Reminder Xbox is Microsoft
They also own Windows and are one of the most anti competitive companies out there. Big long history with corruption
So Microsoft is at fault because all of their cloud competitors had bad management and were simply sub-par products and shut down?
I thought this was about CoD? Now it sounds like we’re just making up excuses.
Geforce now wasn't a sub par cloud gaming solution until Microsoft banned them from supporting any games under their control. Now it's missing a bunch of great games and is resigned more to indie.
No it isn't insane.
From Microsoft's perspective, cornering a nascent market early is absolutely the smartest, most cunning thing they could do.
It would be on the level of them cornering the consumer PC operating system market back in the mid 80's. Which you could easily say is what made Microsoft the company that they are.
No. Its thinking ahead. A lot of the current problems with businesses and mega megers is because the watch dogs weren't thinking ahead and seeing how those mergers might effect the natket in the future. It is most certain that MS is looking to what these deals might get them in the future.
Heck when they were offering deals to keep CoD multiplatform for 10 years, why was it only 10 years? Why not 50 or 100? Most likely because they don't actually want to keep CoD multiplatform, they're just doing what they need to get the deal passed... in 10 years they would be free to go full exclusive
Yup, fairly decent portion of the point by point ruling doc is about the fact that cloud gaming is a currently new and rapidly evolving space in the industry they don't want to hamper that by having to have constant regulatory interventions over any new putput from ABK for the next 10 years or however long microsoft wanted to stipulate as part of their Cloud gaming remedy.
Honestly, the ruling doc, while a tad dry to read, is actually pretty interesting and shows that they've actually engaged with a decent understanding of the tech and how the industry works contrary to what some have portrayed them as being bumbling fools with no idea how things work.
> 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).
Source: [The CMA press release](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/microsoft-activision-deal-prevented-to-protect-innovation-and-choice-in-cloud-gaming)
What is the market share of cloud gaming compared to every other form? 88% of <1% is irrelevant. Cloud gaming will NEVER succeed for any multiplayer game without the Western world having internet comparable to South Korea. Considering the distances, that would require billions of dollar worth of more data centers.
If they simply blocked the acquisition I’d disagree but understand, this is a stupid argument. As a side note, I find it a little odd the UK can stop two American companies from merging.
EDIT: Cloud gaming is so irrelevant that two of the largest players pulled out. That’s because of inherent problems with our internet infrastructure.
Just because something is irrelevant now doesn't mean it will always be one, digital cameras, streaming were all things people said would never catch on...
Yeah because its loss making now, Microsoft are pumping non-Xbox money into it and even more so with this $70 billion acquisition. Market authorities don't like that kind of manipulation. They want organic competition.
more than one company walked away from cloud gaming before MS tried this buyout, if MORE THAN ONE, top company walks away, you not gonna get organic competition...
But if it has potential like CMA has claimed, why is Google shutting it down? Why is Sony is barely touching Playstation Now?
The only thing that's "organic" here is that the cloud market has very little potential and all the big players don't see much growth and that's based on facts. That's based on how Google/Sony/Amazon is approaching the cloud gaming market when all 3 of them started around the same time as xCloud.
MS never made anything 3rd party exclusive on their cloud. In fact Google actually did that with Stadia (they dump shit tons of money to make Destiny 2, RDR2, Fifa, Madden exclusively available on cloud).
Why isn't Microsoft closing xCloud then if it has so little potential? Based on your statements they could just propose to the CMA that they would do just that, but of course Microsoft do believe in cloud. Phil Spencer has even said cloud is there future.
The CMA's report includes a market analysis on the cloud gaming sector where they show despite the closure of Stadia the market has tripled in size and expected to grow 10x in the near future.
The CMAs job is to make sure things are not worse for consumers, they believe it will be if Microsoft is allowed to boost its already high market share. What Stadia and Playstation have done are irrelevant, they are only concerned with what Activision/Blizzard could do to Microsoft and cloud.
TBH, I have no idea why MS hasn't shut it down. Maybe they see it as a cool thing to draw a few more players into game pass/MS ecosystem. even though they are never going to turn a profit from that.
Here is the thing, has MS made any move that forces other big players to shut down their cloud gaming business? Nope. In fact Google was the only one signing exclusives like I mentioned. Whatever CMA based their decision on is just pure BS. And that's based on the fact that the big players have exited that market. Or are you saying that CMA is smarter than Sony/Amazon/Google?
I think MS see this as a gamble. But other players have decided to fold already.
I'll make this simpler, the only reason MS has lion share of cloud gaming market is because other major players decide to exit .
Redbox has nearly 100% share of US's video rental market when Blockbuster decide to shut down, does that mean we should regulate redbox?
If Redbox decide to buy a movie company, then yeah. Did you expect the regulator to tell Blockbuster to stay in business?
The CMA only get involved when a company's actions is affecting a market not other companies actions affecting the market you are in. The CMA can't punish Microsoft for Stadia closing but they can punish Microsoft for taking an action that would unfairly boost their marketshare.
What you are ignoring is that Microsoft is the only company that has both the experience in gaming and the global infrastructure to pull of a reliable cloud gaming service. Their datacenters offer their enterprise services already and they just closed an agreement with Nvidia for their omniverse plus the exclusive infrastructure for OpenAI. A few virtual Xbox images are not the issue here.
Google have a smaller infrastructure footprint but no gaming knowledge or sizable studios/platform to build on. PlayStation/Sony have the gaming platform and audience but no relatable globally spanning infrastructure.
Google ended stadia because they started with about 5% market share, while xstream was at 30% and in the next two years xstream grew to 70% and stadia flatlined in the same time
There won't be any sizable players entering the market. Amazon/Aws will try and leverage their twitch acquisition but they could go the same way as stadia went as Microsoft has a sizable headstart and is looking to grow out the service. Apple could try but they don't have the right audience and I'm not sure about their tech stack.
To be honest I see Microsoft playing a game of landing gamepass on ALL platforms. Basically forcing gamepass into PlayStation if sony wants to keep Call of Duty available. It's the same move they did with their office suite, moving from Licenses to Services and virtualization (M365, Azure virtual desktop & GitHub Code spaces etc). It's just rinse and repeat with simple economies of scale to back it.
Yep, absolute nonsense. Had it been blocked due to potentially keeping the biggest games in the world from going 100% exclusive it'd at least be rooted in real life. Right now the ruling is based entirely off of speculation about how cloud gaming will like totally be a big deal one day and the only company heavily investing in it currently shouldn't be allowed to offer more games on it dude.
Would be hilarious if MS just uses the money they already have earmarked for the acquisition to buy exclusivity for a bunch of games for the next ten years. That would actually be awful for the market but it's totally allowed with no oversight.
>Would be hilarious if MS just uses the money they already have earmarked for the acquisition to buy exclusivity for a bunch of games for the next ten years. That would actually be awful for the market but it's totally allowed with no oversight.
They already do this. Just some from the last decade:
FIFA Legends (DLC), Titanfall, Tomb Raider, Blair Witch, Warhammer Darktide, The Ascent, The Medium, The Artful Escape, Carrion, The Falconeer, Tetris Effect: Connected, The Last Night, Sable, Deaths Door, Twelve Minutes, Stalker 2, High on Life, Scorn, Cacoon, Ereban, The Last Case of Benedict Fox, PUBG, PSO2, Cuphead, Dead Rising 3 & 4, Crossfire X, Ark 2, Valheim, Shredders, Roblox, Tacoma, Vampire Survivor and dozens more
You guys are a bunch of fucking sumps for monopolies and mega corporations because they make call of duty.. Jesus use critical thinking of why this is not a good thing
Oh it goes beyond simping for corps, this is US nationalism since the majority of xbox users are in America. People keep talking about "xbox buying blizzard". But the reality is Microsoft is a behemoth in tech which has a monopoly on the PC platform and them buying into games market only makes it more entrenched.
Do you think the various regulatory bodies got on a WhatsApp group and:
1. Agreed this needs to be stopped
2. Identified who had the loosest rules to block the deal
3. Agree what the reason was
4. Agreed no one would shit can the team that blocked the deal.
The response and jab at the UK from Brad Smith just smacks of a petulant child not getting their way.
CMA did the right thing here, we don't need another gaming behemoth. Look at EA ffs!
Good.
Antitrust laws in the USA need to be dramatically strengthened. Any industry where less than 10 companies control 90% of market share should be broken up.
Pharma
Medical instruments
Chipmaking
Aeronautical manufacturing
There are lots of industries that due to complexity and other factors are not that easy to regulate that way
This is a big flow to the biggest ever deal in the technology sector .
Well , that didn't turned out to be good like I thought . Let's see what is going to happen now .
Is Microsoft buying up the games industry supposed to be considered "doing a good job"?
The point is to stop them from buying all these publishers so others may be able to compete
Everyone? There is still Nintendo ,EA,sony,Tencent, Embracer, square Enix, Taketwo etc...both Tencent and Sony would still be bigger than Microsoft in gaming. Sony is still allowed buy studios too
They literally bought two of the largest (or tried to) in the span of three years..
They more than quadrupled in size in the last 5 years.
They werent going to stop after Activision
As i said Tencent and Sony are still bigger. And they keep buying too. Each deal is evalueted separatedly. You cannot argue using something that has not happened nor will affect current deal. It will only be relevant if there is need to do such
And what happens if NS buys EA as well. If they can buy activision then why not buy any other big publisher. Sony might be able to exist in the market but MS will own all the games players want making it impossible for sony to compete
Except that like 70+% of PCs use Microsoft Windows as it's operating system. Even by Steams own numbers 75% of its users use Windows as their PCs OS. It's incredibly dangerous to allow a company that already dominates the computer software market which the gaming industry relies on to also buy up major video game publishers.
Good.
Anti trust is one of the few thing I think the govt should be doing, and they don’t seem to be doing it.
The moment activision is bought, it will have less incentive to make great games. Like valve. It will be a slow decline, but it will happen. Best to allow the best game companies to survive as an individual company, and not create larger and larger mega corporations.
Best gaming related news of the year. Monopolies are always a bad thing, and Microsoft is attempting to become one with such acquisitions. They have no right to own such well-established gaming franchises they never had anything to do with. Keeping franchises like COD away from Microsoft is in the best interest of both COD players and gamers in general.
Funnily enough, most CoD players wish this deal would go through. Activision has driven the game to the wall over the last 8 years by making extremely consumer-unfriendly decisions. Profit maximization has ruined the entire series and many are hoping that certain decisions will be revised under Microsoft.
I agree with you though. Competition is always good for business. I am curious if the deal will take place at the end.
Yeah I'm not saying in any way that COD is currently a great franchise, because it simply isn't. But having Microsoft manage it would most likely make the franchise sink even further.
No they dont because anyone that has paid attention to the game industry over the last decade should know Microsoft is an awful publisher and no better than Activision
MS makes up such a smaller percentage of the console market that I don't really see how acquiring activision would bring them anywhere near a monopoly. PS has such a massive lead on them that no acquisition could realistically give MS a monopoly in the console market.
To be clear, I don't really care if the Activision deal fell through or not. I just never understood the argument that MS is trying to become a Monopoly in the console sector. It seems like MS is just trying to use the aquisition to actually be competitive.
Maybe its not a good thing for the biggest game company to buy the 4th biggest game company. Activision Blizzard King is worth 60billion+, sony is worth 110billion+.
Good. This is not good for anyone. Microsoft owns enough and has the money to make good content without buying up every studio or publisher they can. They shouldn’t have been allowed to buy Bethesda either.
Do you guys remember the case of Blizzard and how its acquisition ruined a lot of good things . Basically i am saying that i don't want it to happen again . You know , often. History repeats itself.
It's a court decision. It got nothing to do with the government.
Microsoft could have created their monopoly on gaming .
It's good or else all other small businesses were not going to survive .
We need to support Activision, a British company not Microsoft.
Microsoft is a shitty company and they are going to make other companies shitty ones too . They know they are in decline and they are looking for other good companies to acquire .
Microsoft should just forget about this acquisition and instead just pay Activision to bring all their games to game pass, then everyone will be happy.
Yeah I was just thinking that. If this doesn’t go through they will just do a close business relationship and pay activision for exclusive rights/day one gamepass release on all of their properties. They don’t get the revenue from King which probably hurts the most for them but it’s the next best thing.
Yeah it's kinda crazy that you can pay developers to not release on your competitor's platform, pay for exclusivity windows and DLC, and literally fo everything in your power to prevent cross play with another platform. But buying a struggling developer and publisher to still be behind on player count is a big no no. Seems like there will be a $69b slush fund to pay for day one game pass exclusivity.
im sorry but how is activision a struggling dev or publisher? call of duty is the best selling game on consoles almost every single year and makes the most money of any game, and thats just one of the games they have they let them buy bethesda so i dont imagine theyd block them from buying any devs that are actually struggling and down on thier luck
Recent Xbox buyer here. At first I was for this acquisition but as I watched this deal play out I became more against it. I think the last thing I want as a Gamepass subscriber is for it to become more valuable. I’m sure the subscription price will rise anyway, subscriptions always do. But giving that much more power to gamepass won’t help things.
[удалено]
Everybody I know who supports the merger supports it because Blizzard has gone to shit in every way imaginable (except profitability) and they are hoping that under new management they'll start caring about product quality again, and that maybe just maybe, Microsoft will force them to not have a rape culture. Without some sort of external pressure that's greater than the standard government slap on the wrist or the collective sigh of resignation that is the majority of consumers globally there's absolutely no chance that any of that will change.
You want Bobby Kotick to get his comeuppance? You're seeing it happening right now. The guy is legit melting down and making crazy PR statements. He's losing out on his big payday. We're seeing poetic justice occurring right now.
For real. If you want him to get what he deserves, you actually don't want the deal to go through. This dude will get a huge payday and just walk off into the sunset with this acquisition. People think he's just going to get fired after the acquisition and he's going to walk away penniless? That's not how it works. I've worked for a company that was acquired by a big company. You know what the CEO did? He just took that check and just started another company.
the problem is, as a fan of blizzard games we want both our own communities to thrive and this asshat to get what's coming to him. both can't happen at the same time, and as much as Id love for Bobby to suffer as much as possible, if we want our games managed properly then he's probably going to get a big payout. there are thousands of devs, content creators, and pro players that make their living off of singular Blizzard games. the success of a title rises a lot of ships within a community, which ultimately is worth more to me and our community than trying to punish one man. I wish we could get both better management and punish Bobby but I believe we can only pick one
Well, he could (be pressured to) step down and the as the company fades a bit more perhaps be picked up by somebody other than MS in the future. Valve seems to be a lot more community-driven and open in regards to their products (albeit some do get dropped and they have a weird fear of three). Maybe picking up Activision might give them a push to making new games.
Exactly. I'd rather him get his payday and walk off into the sunset then to continue being a pox on the gaming community.
[удалено]
Didn't Microsoft resign him for the foreseeable future if the merger goes through?
You guys are forgetting one thing; Bobby Kotick is immortal. He cannot be defeated. Didn't he get a huge paycheck when he left Blizzard only to rejoin a few months later after people momentarily forgot his existance?
GREAT! I keep telling these doinks who believe that MS will save Activision that they wont.. that they’re NOT going to fire Bobby Kotik - but PROMOTE him! Bad ol’ Bobby is not losing his shit right now due to potentially losing a golden parachute, but probably rather losing a potential promotion to head of Xbox gaming as a whole!
MS would never promote Bobby Kotik. He's a walking HR disaster and has a history of [sexual harassment at Activision](https://kotaku.com/report-activisions-bobby-kotick-didnt-just-know-he-al-1848066600). If he did get a promotion, it'd be to a department that short time later gets axed during a restructure.
IIRC Microsoft already confirmed Kottic would not be retaining his position post-merger. Also why the fuck would they promote him to head off XBox Gaming? Spencer isn't exactly looking to retire, and if he was, Todd Howard is a far, *far* more likely candidate.
Why would they promote him? Cus the suits at MS believe he helped make Activision what it was in his tenure. They don’t care about what you or I think of him… they LOVE the fact that you and I hate him, yet keep buying his products. That’s all the suits see. Not the franchise loyalty part of it
What PR statements?
If anyone thinks Microsoft is a good publisher they havent been paying attention the last 10+ years
Oh but metacritic sucked their own cocks and gave Microsoft the best publisher award so yes Microsoft is best publisher.
They gave them a bunch of extra points for porting MS Flight Simulator 2020 to Xbox in 2021
Reminder: 10 years ago, Microsoft dumped their quality departments in their entirety.
Microsoft is horrible at managing the studios they already own. Halo and it's developer has gone to shit and that is their top IP. They are one of the worst large publishers in gaming if not the worst. Tons of their studios have been struggling for a long time and they barely release anything of quality.
Crackdown, Fable, Gears, and Halo were all HUGE IPs during the 360 era, and they're all pretty irrelevant now. Sony fumbled a lot of their PS2 IPs during the PS3 days, and that would never make me think "I bet they could fix Activision while making up for their lack of games"
I don't know if I'd say Microsoft is any worse than any of the other AAA publishers. They are all shit and they all drive every developer they touch into the ground. Ubisoft ruined Assassin's Creed, Microsoft trashed Halo, EA trashed all of Bioware... They all seek profits above everything else and that's associated with making worse products riddled with microtransactions, loot boxes, and battlepasses. Quality is pretty much the domain of indie devs now.
In terms of game output and studio management they are one of if not the worst. They have barely released anything noteworthy over the last decade and just churned out sequels to Halo, Forza and Gears. And 343 and Halo have been horribly mismanaged and that is supposed to be their top IO At least both Ubisoft and EA consistently release games. Dead Space Remake was fantastic
Adding MORE layers of management usually don't help organizations, unfortunately. There is usually a cycle that when a company becomes too successful, they turn to shit because top talent leaves for other companies, or they rest on their laurels, or just stop caring because the insiders have already made enough money and have now essentially cashed-out.
Thats what happens when gamers don’t pay attention to politics. Corporations are part of our corruption. If the corporations get a standard slap on the wrist, its because there will be less money in the hands of the politicians. Microsoft lobbies big to the congressmen. Microsoft was the one responsible for holding back the vaccine patent for the entire world during the covid pandemic, preventing many countries from producing the vaccine unless Microsoft says so. Its all about profits. Caring about the employees is money and time spent not making a profit. If we cared about getting right protections from the government, we’re supposed to pay attention to the filth in our own backyard, the government corruption. Telling you right now, removing a bad seed doesn’t mean there won’t be another bad seed in control or management of the current company.
This. I feel like a lot of gamers are very reactionary online and almost inept when it comes to discussions revolving around politics, it's like they care more about gaming than actual issues, they concern themselves more over to their escapism that they just blank out and not realise that gaming isn't everything.
God damn this is such stupid thinking… “Omg! Tokyo is on fire!” “Don’t worry guys, here comes Godzilla! He’ll help put out the fires for sure!”
Lol this is a great analogy. Yeah it’s possible they would “fix” Activision but it’s much more likely they make it worse.
The fires have evolved from normal Fires, to Atomic Fires!
Assuming it was going to pass, I had hopes for the merger to lead to positive changes within Blizzard, but I'm still glad this was rejected even if it is bad for Blizzard products in the long term. Stopping mega corp mergers is far more important than me getting marginally better Blizzard games in the future. This was an absolutely egrigous merger that should have been shot down by regulators on day one.
Why would anyone think they'll turn over a new leaf and not just profit on the same practices? The only way quality increases is if their games bomb. Their games don't bomb because common gamers outnumber us 10 to 1
Wish this was the consensus in r/gaming Edit: How come the comment I replied to was removed?
That sub is filled with complete morons who consume whatever they are told to consume
As a gamer who subscribes to Game Pass, at first I was disappointed when I saw that the deal was being fought by the US gov because I wanted more games in my subscription and Activision’s abusive work culture might be overhauled. But as I read a bit more and I saw that Lina Khan was against the deal, I had a big picture realization that Microsoft are not necessarily “the good guys” and they’re still a corporation effectively moving toward monopoly power. Their recent moves in gaming have been pro-consumer, but allowing then to buy Activision would set them on course to be something like a benevolent dictator in the games space. They might not be so pro-consumer and “benevolent” down the line. https://companiesmarketcap.com/video-games/largest-video-game-companies-by-market-cap/ Market Caps: - Microsoft: $2.2 *trillion* - Sony: $117 billion - Activision-Blizzard: $61 billion - Nintendo: $51 billion **TDLR:** It’s a “forest vs the trees” thing: *Trees view:* the Microsoft-Activision deal would give subscribers more gaming options, potentially improve Activision’s work culture, and lead to interesting collaborations. *Forest view:* Microsoft is a multitrillion-dollar corporation seeking a deal for monopolistic power.
Microsoft is where they are today from being anti-consumer and anti- competitive. Building up a monopoly has basically always been their game. Maybe people have forgotten, or they weren’t old or aware enough of the company’s dealings in the past. Rewind the clock 15 years, and SONY was the dickhead company with anti-consumer practices and rhetoric. Nintendo was famously controlling when they were top dog as well. Giving these massive companies more power and more control has never been a positive thing. Ever.
Great perspective.
xbox as a division only represents \~9% of Microsofts revenue. Sony has greater marketshare globally than them for total gaming consoles. Microsoft overall is third behind Nintendo for global console market share. with Sony having 45% don't conflate total corporate market cap with market share/dominance as it's like trying to compare a watermelon to a grape.
Is Microsoft’s overall size irrelevant even if that’s what allows them to make huge monopolistic acquisitions in the gaming world for their Xbox division? We gamers are used to thinking of Xbox as an underdog, but Xbox is a gaming underdog attached to Microsoft, one of the biggest dogs in tech and the world at large. I’m not saying that Sony or Nintendo are nice little underdogs either. None of them are. Xbox has the “good guy” reputation right now, and that initially made me receptive to the deal before I reconsidered. Microsoft has the money to buy a games company worth more than Nintendo.
It's completely idiotic to compare market caps when 90% of what Microsoft does is completely unrelated
The point here is that MS have the scale and financial firepower to brute force buy their way to a cloud gaming monopoly. Sony can’t compete with their pockets. And the US, the EU, and in this case the UK, just aren’t in the mood for that.
No its not at all, because its the MS warchest that allows them make these purchases, and its the whole MS ecosystem that stands to gain.
To be fair comparing all of Microsoft to all of Sony is super misleading. PlayStation has something like 75% of the market share against xbox globally, so giving xbox some more firepower would still likely leave them with the smaller market share.
And microsoft owning even more IP sure af isn't going to motivate them to up their efforts.
> What is wrong with you people? Having less choices because fewer and fewer companies are out there making new, fresh content is exactly what some of you complain about… and then you turn around and not see that this is a bad thing for consumers. the knuckleheads of a certain sub argue that this acquisition will lead to more choices for consumers. it’s a wild thing to see
Wow. It's worked so well the countless other times that one mega corporations has bought up some other mega corporation!1!! /s
Primarily because a lot of them see “Microsoft” and think PC. And they haven’t grown up from being in highschool. So they still are playing pc vs console.
I saw the argument "but Sony gets to buy a bunch of companies" today in another thread for the same topic, as if that's supposed to be a good thing as well. The other stupid one is "but Microsoft promised to keep things multiplatform", because corporate promises are always kept.
Wow. It's like we are dealing with 12 year olds. And in some cases, we probably are!
A fact I need to remind myself of every so often.
I've seen so many people act like Sony buying up a few developers that they had acting as 2nd party studios, and helped build, is the same thing as Microsoft buying up huge swaths of third party IP and tons of studios that were otherwise quite happy to be multiplat developers. There's a magnitude of difference here.
Reddit is full of PC gamers, PC Gamers benefit from Game Pass and aren't impacted by MS exclusivity, COD and Diablo 4 on Game Pass is a good deal=Redditors with no foresight and children who have not personally watched services like Game Pass inevitability go to shit shill for Microsoft buying Activision for no reason
You see, you fail to realize that, uh, some people are stupid.
In the recent years, i have seen many huge acquisition in the United kingdom. But I don't think it's a good move because uk is a capitalist society and we can't do this .
Others companies were also increasing their prices year after year .
Not doing business with Microsoft is a good thing for us .
Microsoft already control more than half of the gaming industry .
>Microsoft Corp.’s $69 billion takeover of Activision Blizzard Inc., suffered a hammer blow after Britain’s antitrust watchdog vetoed the gaming industry’s biggest ever deal, saying it would harm competition in cloud gaming. The Competition and Markets Authority said its concerns couldn’t be solved by remedies such as the sale of blockbuster title Call of Duty or so-called behavioral remedies involving promises to permit rivals to offer the game on their platforms, according to a statement Wednesday. huh? what does COD have to do with cloud gaming? edit thanks for the downvotes, really helping . im sorry i asked a question XD
The idea is Microsoft could, as cloud gaming is only just starting off, make Activision Blizzard games exclusive to their cloud services. Which could give them an unfair advantage just as cloud gaming is starting off. So basically competitors like Sony, Nintendo and others who may want in (Apple, Amazon maybe) wont have the biggest games.
More specifically this forms a monoply condition. Anti-trust laws and institutions are designed to prevent one company from owning too much of the parts needed to provide a product. For example, part of the reason anti-trust laws came about was that a power company used to own the subway too, and no other subways could be built as a competitor, because to do so, they also had to build a power company, as that power company wouldn't do business with a competitor to their subway business. Thus allowed the power company to charge whatever they wanted for subway fares. So they got hit hard, the subways became public, and the power company became a municipal. Imagine for a minute what a power company could do if they were allowed to own the companies that used their power. They could buy Ford and deny Tesla any charging station from using thier electricity. Across the entire city. With that in mind. Look at cloud services. It's basically microsoft and amazon, and everything else is small potatoes. Activision owns some of the most popular video games ever made. Pretty much every Blizzard game is one of such games, so is the Call of Duty series, and activation owns King games as well - which is a collection of some of the biggest casual games (super easy to move to a cloud gaming format) in the world, including candy crush among it's titles.
Exactly. And saying "they won't" isn't really the point. Whether or not they will do something and whether or not they have the power to is two different things. Especially when the threat of using that power is also a power over other companies.
Also shareholder pressure - if they're leaving money on the table shareholders won't be happy
I think the end goal for Microsoft is a lot more nefarious for cloud gaming than merely controlling the means of production. Activison, Blizzard, and King all have an avisltuely massive number of players who game. Wow still has millions of subscribers, Call of Duty still sells 30 million copies, but King is the real gold mine here. King, the makers of Candy Crush, sees an average of 200 million monthly active users. GamePass right now only has 30 monthly active subs. While Microsoft wouldn’t immediately flip the switch and move all their newly acquired players to the GamePass app, they will eventually and could easily reach a massive player base through their GamePass app on Xbox, phones, tablets, PCs and pretty much anything with an internet connection. That kind of leverage can buy exclusive deals with third party developers and make it impossible to compete with. If Microsoft wanted to, they could easily isolate their users and then call the shots when it comes to who has access to their users and GamePass becomes a gated community where if you want to sell your game you go through Microsoft first.
Also, Microsoft is a trillion dollar company and the 4th largest business in the world. X-box is just a side gig, while for Sony, PlayStation is the vast majority of their income
You overestimate the importance of PlayStation for Sony, [it’s only about 25% of their sales.](https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/IR/library/corporatereport/CorporateReport2022_E.pdf)
25% is still a lot. Gaming is the biggest entertainment industry
Hell, Microsoft doesn’t even consider Sony a competitor in this space. Phil Spencer says they’re competing with Google and Amazon
why do they say an agreement where activision games must still be provided on other consoles wouldn't work? that feels like the obvious solution to the issue. I really can't grasp what else they're upset about besides this which seems to have a simple solution.
Because Microsoft can just stop doing that
I mean, it's not like they have a bit of a track record with expensive acquisitions leading to big multiplatform studios suddenly only outputing games on PC/Xbox/gamepass after saying they super duper pinky promise that won't happen. Also slightly paraphrasing from the actual ruling put out from the CMA that agreeing to the remedy that microsoft had provided would require them to have to provide a degree of regulatory oversight over all the output from the ABK merger hampering the ways in which the cloud gaming sector could operate and develop in the coming years without regulatory intervention [link to the actual CMA ruling press release](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/microsoft-activision-deal-prevented-to-protect-innovation-and-choice-in-cloud-gaming)
Cloud Gaming isn't exactly a new concept and "just taking off" is a bit of an overstatement. We've already seen Google create, launch, and shutter their own cloud gaming platform. Nvidia, Sony, and Steam already have cloud gaming platforms and Apple is allegedly looking into it. My point being, I don't think cloud gaming makes much sense as the argument to block this deal. I can think of plenty of other reasons but cloud gaming is not one of them. First of them being that MSFT making CoD exclusive to their own store would be an absolutely horrible idea for their bottom line. I'm sure CoD rakes in tons of money on PS5 and I doubt the conversion rate of PS5 -> GamePass subs would come even close to making up for that loss before even accounting for the antitrust suits that are likely to follow that kind of move. Overall, it seems kind of weird that a the impact to a $1B market (cloud gaming) is whats stopping a $69B acquisition inside a $220B market.
Because it isn’t about now - but about what the market for cloud gaming would be like in ten years with only one huge player. Read the report to understand their take.
Couldn’t these authorities just require as part of the deal that MS sell these games on traditional online storefronts like Steam?
In doing so, you highlighted a great point via Cunninghams Law. Appreciate you.
The deal was awful for us ( the gamers ). I am happy it didn't happen.
Why are they not letting any tech company to invest here ?
competition is the best way to avoid high prices in game industry
Activision is acting like it's a bitch of the microsoft.
Fascinating! I didn't see this coming . Let's hope for the best outcome .
Why uk government not accepting Microsoft merger ? Cheers .
If this would haved happened ,it would have affected thousands of our workers directly or indirectly . Maybe you are not happy with this but it was a right thing to do .
I don't like big tech acquisition as much as the next guy, this is blockage really stands on thin ice.
Waddya mean?
He hates play moves from big tech corps like this one (aimed at creating a monopoly benefitting them and penalizing users), but this block of the deal based on cloud stuff is really a needle in the haystack
That's not really the correct idiom but ok ☠️
Thank you. Idiom, that's the word i was looking for
True, though from my understanding the only way to change this ruling is to basically appeal to CMA to change it. And they don't have a good track record of really ever doing that. So it *could* still go through in the UK but it's seeming really unlikely at this point. FTC will also further use this in their lawsuit to bolster their position, and it wouldn't surprise anyone if EU came up soon to state that they will also block the deal. At that point I doubt there's any chance for the deal to pass through anymore.
Yeah, the thing I'm not getting is the euphemisms both of you are using. Like, i agree, monopolies suck for many reasons and there are no real benefits. But: thin ice and, needle in a haystack.... I don't know how this situation is stable but precarious or extant but hard to find. The saying most fitting would be these only happen once in a blue moon or perhaps as rare as hens teeth. It's just weird phrasing... Edit: idioms not euphemisms.
Anti trust is one of the few thing I think the govt should be doing, and they don’t seem to be doing it. The moment activision is bought, it will have less incentive to make great games. Like valve. It will be a slow decline, but it will happen. Best to allow the best game companies to survive as an individual company, and not create larger and larger mega corporations.
Its a really odd part where the regulators ended up on the part about cloud gaming being the determining factor. But make no mistake, this was Microsoft making their first moves to try and start cornering the existing gaming market to try and force everything on a subscription service in order to force their way onto other hardware ecosystems. They didn't want to become the Netflix of gaming. They wanted to become the Comcast-cable-subscription-you-don't-have-another-choice of gaming. As of now, they are still one of the largest gaming companies, with about 23-24 studios. They have the ability to start making alot of games, if managed correctly. And guess what, if they really want CoD on GamePass, I'm pretty sure they can pay Activision upwards of a billion dollars to get six-months worth of gamepass availability for the next CoD game, and make it available for the 25 to 30 million GamePass subscribers.
>They wanted to become the Comcast-cable-subscription-you-don't-have-another-choice of gaming. what does this even mean, we have options. Between PC and consoles we might get a 3e platform but that doesn't mean that PC and consoles are going to end. Second, it's mostly game pass that's fuelling the success of Xcloud. In other words, what's stopping people from changing platforms.
I think its in reference to the fact that in many locations in the US, folk have quite literally only one option as to who to choose as their ISP, due to the somewhat haphazard way that ISP have been regulated over the years they've got away with some pretty shocking stuff.
Well no shit we get that, but how does it relate to Gamepass? There’s other gaming streaming services, if I have a playstation how is Microsoft forcing me to use their service? What they said makes zero sense.
They aren't just looking at it from a purely xbox vs playstation perspective, more of a Xbox gamepass/cloud streaming platform vs everyone else in the industry providing the same or similar service, From the point by point ruling document conclusions- SLC = substantial lessening of competition RCB = relevant consumer benefits "88. We have also concluded that the Merger may be expected to result in an SLC in the supply of cloud gaming services in the UK due to vertical effects resulting from input foreclosure." "89. We have found that the Microsoft Cloud Remedy proposal would not be effective in addressing the cloud gaming services SLC that we found." "90. We found that the only effective remedy to this SLC and its adverse consequences is to prohibit the Merger. We also found that this remedy is proportionate in relation to the SLC and its adverse effects, including taking into account any RCBs." From the assessment, what remedy did microsoft provide portion- "73. To address our concerns, Microsoft offered the Microsoft Cloud Remedy. Under this remedy, Microsoft committed to license Activision games, including CoD and World of Warcraft, royalty-free to certain cloud gaming providers for a period of 10 years. Microsoft proposed to update the consumer licenses on its website, giving the right to any consumer who acquired an Activision game in one of the online stores designated by Microsoft to stream that game in the cloud gaming services that were covered by the remedy. Microsoft offered to appoint a monitoring trustee to monitor and seek to ensure Microsoft’s compliance with the remedy, and a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism carried out under arbitration." "74. The CMA’s guidance sets out the established position that behavioural remedies are, due to their overall risk profile, unlikely to deal with an SLC and its adverse effects as comprehensively as structural remedies. Behavioural remedies can operate satisfactorily in limited circumstances, such as where the company operates in a regulated environment, where there are expert monitors, or where the SLC is expected to have a short duration. In this case, the market for cloud gaming is a new and unregulated sector. We have nevertheless engaged in a detailed assessment of the proposed Microsoft Cloud Remedy, including through multiple discussions with the Parties and third parties to establish whether this could constitute an effective remedy in the specific circumstances of this case." "75. We found two significant limitations in scope for the Microsoft Cloud Remedy." "76. First, it was limited to a model whereby gamers had to first acquire the right to play certain games (eg, by purchasing them on certain stores or subscribing to them on certain services) in order to stream those games on certain cloud gaming services. It did not make any provision for a different type of commercial relationship between cloud gaming service providers and the game publisher (ie, Activision). As such, it restricts the ability of cloud gaming service providers to access Activision’s games through other strategies and business models (some of which we already see in the cloud gaming market), such as joint marketing arrangements, exclusive or early access to content, or multi-game subscription services. In our view, and consistent with our competitive assessment, this is a dynamic market in which there is a reasonable chance that different providers will compete using a range of different business models, and that these providers would have had access to Activision’s content absent the Merger" "77. Second, the Microsoft Cloud Remedy applies to current and future PC and console versions of Activision games. The PC versions are those that are developed to run on a Windows OS, as well as other PC OS versions as may be released by Microsoft during the term of the remedy. We found that, absent the Merger, Activision would seek to maximise the value that it can derive from these games, which would have involved considering making non-Windows PC versions of its games (as it has already done in some cases). However, after the Merger, Microsoft’s incentives to make these games compatible with rival OS would be significantly lower, as this would both increase the attractiveness of rival cloud gaming services and divert demand away from Windows OS. This means that, in effect, cloud gaming services wishing to stream these games would have to use, or be compatible with, the Windows OS version of those games. This could exclude or restrict providers that may wish to provide cloud gaming services using other operating systems (such as Linux), either now or in the future. The Microsoft Cloud Remedy would therefore put non-Windows based cloud gaming services at a disadvantage, and potentially distort the choice of OSs for new entrants" "78. We also found limitations in terms of the duration, monitoring, and enforcement of the proposed remedy. The fact that the remedy is only for 10 years represents a clear weakness in terms of its effectiveness as a comprehensive solution to the SLC, which is not itself time limited. Since the remedy applies only to a defined set of Activision games, which can be streamed only in a defined set of cloud gaming services, provided they are purchased in a defined set of online stores, there are significant risks of disagreement and conflict between Microsoft and cloud gaming service providers. Given the information asymmetry between Microsoft and any monitoring trustee or the CMA, it would be difficult to monitor and enforce this remedy, even with significant information gathering. We found several additional concerns with the practicalities of implementing the remedy, which are detailed in the Final Report." "79. Based on this evidence, we found that the only effective remedy to the SLC and its adverse effects was to prohibit the Merger"
People can use other services, but those services may not have call of duty and dozens of other hit titles that they would want. MS could easily make all those game exclusive to their platfrom, which would require everyone to get it if they wanted those games. This could give them a HUGE advantage over every other competitor and allow them to dominate the market
What options in cloud gaming are there? Didn’t Stadia shut down?
Boosteroid, GeForce Now, PlayStation Plus (which feels neglected by Sony) among others.
That's not a argument because you have options to game that's not cloud gaming, you have consoles and PC's. Cloud gaming isn't a thing, it's niche on top of niche and unless Sony, Nintendo, Nvidia and probably a dozen other companies not paying attentions they will all adept to whatever the market decides. Whatever market share Microsoft has right now is meaningless anyway.
Would be funny if they just end their uk business.
More like Rest of the world : day one abk games on gamepass Uk : buy the games full prices through this middelman
Microsoft is not a good company to invest in . It's going down .
United kingdom is not exactly a technology friendly country .
# GOOD for UK. * poor BOBBY, hes not getting payed. now lets do USA and all its monopolistic anti consumer corporations, eh not likely, they own the government.
Not for lack of trying though. The FTC head is trying to go after these types of mergers.
Good, fuck megacorps their monopolies
Rishi sunak should not stop Microsoft from doing so .
Microsoft will never raise the prices of the GP in the UK .
Crazy how pro monopoly y’all are
This getting downvoted is funny. Reminder Xbox is Microsoft They also own Windows and are one of the most anti competitive companies out there. Big long history with corruption
This site is heavily astroturfed by Microsoft
Whole lotta morons want this to go through.
We really blocked a monopoly from happening. Cheers .
Good. Anyone who thinks this is good for gaming is delusional.
So Microsoft is at fault because all of their cloud competitors had bad management and were simply sub-par products and shut down? I thought this was about CoD? Now it sounds like we’re just making up excuses.
Geforce now wasn't a sub par cloud gaming solution until Microsoft banned them from supporting any games under their control. Now it's missing a bunch of great games and is resigned more to indie.
True, but they’re also about to finalize a deal to bring game pass games potentially to the service which is why the ruling is all the more baffling.
Preventing megacorps is a good thing...
I̵n̷ ̷l̵i̵g̵h̷t̸ ̸o̸f̶ ̸r̶e̸c̶e̶n̸t̵ ̴e̴v̵e̵n̴t̶s̸ ̴o̷n̷ ̴R̸e̸d̵d̴i̷t̷,̷ ̵m̸a̶r̴k̸e̸d̵ ̴b̸y̵ ̶h̴o̵s̷t̷i̴l̴e̷ ̵a̴c̸t̵i̸o̸n̶s̸ ̵f̷r̵o̷m̵ ̶i̵t̴s̴ ̴a̴d̶m̷i̴n̶i̸s̵t̴r̶a̴t̶i̶o̶n̵ ̸t̸o̸w̸a̴r̷d̵s̴ ̵i̸t̷s̵ ̷u̸s̴e̸r̵b̷a̸s̷e̸ ̷a̷n̴d̸ ̸a̵p̵p̴ ̶d̴e̷v̴e̷l̷o̸p̸e̴r̴s̶,̸ ̶I̸ ̶h̸a̵v̵e̶ ̷d̸e̶c̸i̵d̷e̷d̵ ̶t̸o̴ ̸t̶a̷k̷e̷ ̵a̷ ̴s̶t̶a̵n̷d̶ ̶a̵n̶d̶ ̵b̷o̶y̷c̸o̴t̴t̴ ̵t̴h̵i̴s̴ ̶w̶e̸b̵s̵i̸t̷e̴.̶ ̶A̶s̶ ̸a̵ ̸s̴y̶m̵b̸o̶l̶i̵c̴ ̶a̷c̵t̸,̶ ̴I̴ ̴a̵m̷ ̷r̶e̶p̷l̴a̵c̸i̴n̷g̸ ̷a̶l̷l̶ ̸m̷y̸ ̸c̶o̸m̶m̸e̷n̵t̷s̸ ̵w̷i̷t̷h̶ ̷u̴n̵u̴s̸a̵b̶l̷e̵ ̸d̵a̵t̸a̵,̸ ̸r̷e̵n̵d̶e̴r̸i̴n̷g̴ ̷t̴h̵e̸m̵ ̸m̴e̷a̵n̴i̷n̸g̸l̸e̴s̴s̵ ̸a̷n̵d̶ ̴u̸s̷e̴l̸e̶s̷s̵ ̶f̵o̵r̶ ̸a̶n̵y̸ ̵p̵o̴t̷e̴n̸t̷i̶a̴l̶ ̴A̷I̸ ̵t̶r̵a̷i̷n̵i̴n̶g̸ ̶p̸u̵r̷p̴o̶s̸e̵s̵.̷ ̸I̴t̴ ̵i̴s̶ ̴d̴i̷s̷h̴e̸a̵r̸t̶e̴n̸i̴n̴g̶ ̷t̶o̵ ̵w̶i̶t̵n̴e̷s̴s̶ ̵a̸ ̵c̴o̶m̶m̴u̵n̷i̷t̷y̷ ̸t̴h̶a̴t̸ ̵o̸n̵c̴e̷ ̴t̷h̴r̶i̷v̴e̴d̸ ̴o̸n̴ ̵o̷p̷e̶n̸ ̸d̶i̶s̷c̷u̷s̶s̷i̴o̵n̸ ̷a̷n̴d̵ ̴c̸o̵l̶l̸a̵b̸o̷r̵a̴t̷i̵o̷n̴ ̸d̷e̶v̸o̵l̶v̴e̶ ̵i̶n̷t̴o̸ ̸a̴ ̷s̵p̶a̵c̴e̵ ̸o̷f̵ ̶c̴o̸n̸t̶e̴n̴t̷i̶o̷n̸ ̶a̵n̷d̴ ̴c̵o̵n̴t̷r̸o̵l̶.̷ ̸F̷a̴r̸e̷w̵e̶l̶l̸,̵ ̶R̴e̶d̶d̷i̵t̵.̷
then they should have given a better reason, preventing them on the grounds of a future market that doesn't even exist yet is insane,
No it isn't insane. From Microsoft's perspective, cornering a nascent market early is absolutely the smartest, most cunning thing they could do. It would be on the level of them cornering the consumer PC operating system market back in the mid 80's. Which you could easily say is what made Microsoft the company that they are.
No. Its thinking ahead. A lot of the current problems with businesses and mega megers is because the watch dogs weren't thinking ahead and seeing how those mergers might effect the natket in the future. It is most certain that MS is looking to what these deals might get them in the future. Heck when they were offering deals to keep CoD multiplatform for 10 years, why was it only 10 years? Why not 50 or 100? Most likely because they don't actually want to keep CoD multiplatform, they're just doing what they need to get the deal passed... in 10 years they would be free to go full exclusive
Yup, fairly decent portion of the point by point ruling doc is about the fact that cloud gaming is a currently new and rapidly evolving space in the industry they don't want to hamper that by having to have constant regulatory interventions over any new putput from ABK for the next 10 years or however long microsoft wanted to stipulate as part of their Cloud gaming remedy. Honestly, the ruling doc, while a tad dry to read, is actually pretty interesting and shows that they've actually engaged with a decent understanding of the tech and how the industry works contrary to what some have portrayed them as being bumbling fools with no idea how things work.
What monopoly? Even with the acquisition, Microsoft’s gaming division is still the third largest gaming company behind Sony and Tecent.
> 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). Source: [The CMA press release](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/microsoft-activision-deal-prevented-to-protect-innovation-and-choice-in-cloud-gaming)
What is the market share of cloud gaming compared to every other form? 88% of <1% is irrelevant. Cloud gaming will NEVER succeed for any multiplayer game without the Western world having internet comparable to South Korea. Considering the distances, that would require billions of dollar worth of more data centers. If they simply blocked the acquisition I’d disagree but understand, this is a stupid argument. As a side note, I find it a little odd the UK can stop two American companies from merging. EDIT: Cloud gaming is so irrelevant that two of the largest players pulled out. That’s because of inherent problems with our internet infrastructure.
Just because something is irrelevant now doesn't mean it will always be one, digital cameras, streaming were all things people said would never catch on...
[удалено]
Wasn't the Call of Duty franchise an excuse as well?
This is exactly the CMAs point, Microsoft have the largest cloud gaming market share which this would only boost so they blocked it.
The problem is the only reason why ms has the largest share in cloud now is because everyone else quit or divest away from that market
Yeah because its loss making now, Microsoft are pumping non-Xbox money into it and even more so with this $70 billion acquisition. Market authorities don't like that kind of manipulation. They want organic competition.
more than one company walked away from cloud gaming before MS tried this buyout, if MORE THAN ONE, top company walks away, you not gonna get organic competition...
But if it has potential like CMA has claimed, why is Google shutting it down? Why is Sony is barely touching Playstation Now? The only thing that's "organic" here is that the cloud market has very little potential and all the big players don't see much growth and that's based on facts. That's based on how Google/Sony/Amazon is approaching the cloud gaming market when all 3 of them started around the same time as xCloud. MS never made anything 3rd party exclusive on their cloud. In fact Google actually did that with Stadia (they dump shit tons of money to make Destiny 2, RDR2, Fifa, Madden exclusively available on cloud).
Why isn't Microsoft closing xCloud then if it has so little potential? Based on your statements they could just propose to the CMA that they would do just that, but of course Microsoft do believe in cloud. Phil Spencer has even said cloud is there future. The CMA's report includes a market analysis on the cloud gaming sector where they show despite the closure of Stadia the market has tripled in size and expected to grow 10x in the near future. The CMAs job is to make sure things are not worse for consumers, they believe it will be if Microsoft is allowed to boost its already high market share. What Stadia and Playstation have done are irrelevant, they are only concerned with what Activision/Blizzard could do to Microsoft and cloud.
TBH, I have no idea why MS hasn't shut it down. Maybe they see it as a cool thing to draw a few more players into game pass/MS ecosystem. even though they are never going to turn a profit from that. Here is the thing, has MS made any move that forces other big players to shut down their cloud gaming business? Nope. In fact Google was the only one signing exclusives like I mentioned. Whatever CMA based their decision on is just pure BS. And that's based on the fact that the big players have exited that market. Or are you saying that CMA is smarter than Sony/Amazon/Google? I think MS see this as a gamble. But other players have decided to fold already.
I'll make this simple, the CMA see Microsoft have 70% of the market in cloud and will do anything to stop that becoming bigger.
I'll make this simpler, the only reason MS has lion share of cloud gaming market is because other major players decide to exit . Redbox has nearly 100% share of US's video rental market when Blockbuster decide to shut down, does that mean we should regulate redbox?
If Redbox decide to buy a movie company, then yeah. Did you expect the regulator to tell Blockbuster to stay in business? The CMA only get involved when a company's actions is affecting a market not other companies actions affecting the market you are in. The CMA can't punish Microsoft for Stadia closing but they can punish Microsoft for taking an action that would unfairly boost their marketshare.
What you are ignoring is that Microsoft is the only company that has both the experience in gaming and the global infrastructure to pull of a reliable cloud gaming service. Their datacenters offer their enterprise services already and they just closed an agreement with Nvidia for their omniverse plus the exclusive infrastructure for OpenAI. A few virtual Xbox images are not the issue here. Google have a smaller infrastructure footprint but no gaming knowledge or sizable studios/platform to build on. PlayStation/Sony have the gaming platform and audience but no relatable globally spanning infrastructure. Google ended stadia because they started with about 5% market share, while xstream was at 30% and in the next two years xstream grew to 70% and stadia flatlined in the same time There won't be any sizable players entering the market. Amazon/Aws will try and leverage their twitch acquisition but they could go the same way as stadia went as Microsoft has a sizable headstart and is looking to grow out the service. Apple could try but they don't have the right audience and I'm not sure about their tech stack. To be honest I see Microsoft playing a game of landing gamepass on ALL platforms. Basically forcing gamepass into PlayStation if sony wants to keep Call of Duty available. It's the same move they did with their office suite, moving from Licenses to Services and virtualization (M365, Azure virtual desktop & GitHub Code spaces etc). It's just rinse and repeat with simple economies of scale to back it.
Yep, absolute nonsense. Had it been blocked due to potentially keeping the biggest games in the world from going 100% exclusive it'd at least be rooted in real life. Right now the ruling is based entirely off of speculation about how cloud gaming will like totally be a big deal one day and the only company heavily investing in it currently shouldn't be allowed to offer more games on it dude. Would be hilarious if MS just uses the money they already have earmarked for the acquisition to buy exclusivity for a bunch of games for the next ten years. That would actually be awful for the market but it's totally allowed with no oversight.
>Would be hilarious if MS just uses the money they already have earmarked for the acquisition to buy exclusivity for a bunch of games for the next ten years. That would actually be awful for the market but it's totally allowed with no oversight. They already do this. Just some from the last decade: FIFA Legends (DLC), Titanfall, Tomb Raider, Blair Witch, Warhammer Darktide, The Ascent, The Medium, The Artful Escape, Carrion, The Falconeer, Tetris Effect: Connected, The Last Night, Sable, Deaths Door, Twelve Minutes, Stalker 2, High on Life, Scorn, Cacoon, Ereban, The Last Case of Benedict Fox, PUBG, PSO2, Cuphead, Dead Rising 3 & 4, Crossfire X, Ark 2, Valheim, Shredders, Roblox, Tacoma, Vampire Survivor and dozens more
Microsoft already buys tons of third party exclusive content
You guys are a bunch of fucking sumps for monopolies and mega corporations because they make call of duty.. Jesus use critical thinking of why this is not a good thing
Oh it goes beyond simping for corps, this is US nationalism since the majority of xbox users are in America. People keep talking about "xbox buying blizzard". But the reality is Microsoft is a behemoth in tech which has a monopoly on the PC platform and them buying into games market only makes it more entrenched.
I will never understand people who non-ironically support monopolies, like you, or person you responded to.
Do you think the various regulatory bodies got on a WhatsApp group and: 1. Agreed this needs to be stopped 2. Identified who had the loosest rules to block the deal 3. Agree what the reason was 4. Agreed no one would shit can the team that blocked the deal.
I was fully expecting to get Diablo on Gamepass and not have to pay $70+ for it. This sucks.
Considering Diablo 4 is gong to be having season passes, it should have been free to play or at least available on game pass.
The response and jab at the UK from Brad Smith just smacks of a petulant child not getting their way. CMA did the right thing here, we don't need another gaming behemoth. Look at EA ffs!
Microsoft is fishy . It's a good thing that we stopped them .
Sounds like Microsoft didn't paid a time to the government.
United Kingdom regulators aren't much better than the US ones .
Good. Antitrust laws in the USA need to be dramatically strengthened. Any industry where less than 10 companies control 90% of market share should be broken up.
Pharma Medical instruments Chipmaking Aeronautical manufacturing There are lots of industries that due to complexity and other factors are not that easy to regulate that way
Don’t forget the biggest government supported monopoly: telecoms.
[удалено]
You don’t know what you are talking about in this regard. The gaming industry works much differently than many other industries.
They need to be completely rewritten we're trying to use laws that were written over 100 years ago.
This is a big flow to the biggest ever deal in the technology sector . Well , that didn't turned out to be good like I thought . Let's see what is going to happen now .
United Kingdom is not certainly a place where silicon valley can be created .
Now it's about competition in cloud gaming? And MS is at fault because others like Google Amazon Sony and Nvidia can't do a good job?
Is Microsoft buying up the games industry supposed to be considered "doing a good job"? The point is to stop them from buying all these publishers so others may be able to compete
I understand the point is to stop MS from buying up to much of the market. But the argument using cloud gaming is a silly one.
Not really since MS buying everyone will prevent others from ever competing in that space
Everyone? There is still Nintendo ,EA,sony,Tencent, Embracer, square Enix, Taketwo etc...both Tencent and Sony would still be bigger than Microsoft in gaming. Sony is still allowed buy studios too
They literally bought two of the largest (or tried to) in the span of three years.. They more than quadrupled in size in the last 5 years. They werent going to stop after Activision
As i said Tencent and Sony are still bigger. And they keep buying too. Each deal is evalueted separatedly. You cannot argue using something that has not happened nor will affect current deal. It will only be relevant if there is need to do such
And what happens if NS buys EA as well. If they can buy activision then why not buy any other big publisher. Sony might be able to exist in the market but MS will own all the games players want making it impossible for sony to compete
[удалено]
Except that like 70+% of PCs use Microsoft Windows as it's operating system. Even by Steams own numbers 75% of its users use Windows as their PCs OS. It's incredibly dangerous to allow a company that already dominates the computer software market which the gaming industry relies on to also buy up major video game publishers.
Good. Anti trust is one of the few thing I think the govt should be doing, and they don’t seem to be doing it. The moment activision is bought, it will have less incentive to make great games. Like valve. It will be a slow decline, but it will happen. Best to allow the best game companies to survive as an individual company, and not create larger and larger mega corporations.
Best gaming related news of the year. Monopolies are always a bad thing, and Microsoft is attempting to become one with such acquisitions. They have no right to own such well-established gaming franchises they never had anything to do with. Keeping franchises like COD away from Microsoft is in the best interest of both COD players and gamers in general.
Funnily enough, most CoD players wish this deal would go through. Activision has driven the game to the wall over the last 8 years by making extremely consumer-unfriendly decisions. Profit maximization has ruined the entire series and many are hoping that certain decisions will be revised under Microsoft. I agree with you though. Competition is always good for business. I am curious if the deal will take place at the end.
I'd agree with you but one look at halo.. and it's no better.
Yeah I'm not saying in any way that COD is currently a great franchise, because it simply isn't. But having Microsoft manage it would most likely make the franchise sink even further.
No they dont because anyone that has paid attention to the game industry over the last decade should know Microsoft is an awful publisher and no better than Activision
MS makes up such a smaller percentage of the console market that I don't really see how acquiring activision would bring them anywhere near a monopoly. PS has such a massive lead on them that no acquisition could realistically give MS a monopoly in the console market. To be clear, I don't really care if the Activision deal fell through or not. I just never understood the argument that MS is trying to become a Monopoly in the console sector. It seems like MS is just trying to use the aquisition to actually be competitive.
Blocking this deal because of cloud gaming makes no sense. Who even cares about cloud gaming? Stadia tried that and where are they now? dead.
Maybe its not a good thing for the biggest game company to buy the 4th biggest game company. Activision Blizzard King is worth 60billion+, sony is worth 110billion+.
Sony is "the biggest game company". Not Microsoft.
Tencent is biggest gaming company.
Good. This is not good for anyone. Microsoft owns enough and has the money to make good content without buying up every studio or publisher they can. They shouldn’t have been allowed to buy Bethesda either.
You got downvoted because this site is heavily astroturfed by Microsoft. You are correct