Sony likely has to ask for a license, like all other cloud providers, which would be automatic, so any user which purchased COD on PS5 could stream it via PlayStation Plus Premium tier IF Sony ever expanded to use PS5 Hardware AND allowed gamers to stream games they own. It's a little simpler if they were PS4 version purchased. But Sony still needs to move to allow PlayStation Plus Premium users to stream games they own.
That means all parties are doing what they should have done.
Every negotiation is like this. It's not something that should be used against a party. I negotiated my house the same way, the sellers kept asking for more and I set a hard price or I walk. And they gave me the house.
That's the point of negotiation, to not outbid yourself. I keep saying this but January 2022, nobody cared about the cloud. Microsoft was proactive with Call of Duty because that's where we all thought the hang up would be. 10 years is an eternity in business. Regulators from the EU took a stance on cloud gaming, Microsoft replied in kind. The EU is going to regulate Microsoft on this aspect of the deal. Most CEOS sign 1-3 year deals, most sports leagues don't go beyond 7 year guaranteed contracts, most collective bargaining for unions is 4-5 years, most commercial rental agreements are 5 years as are most lease agreements but 10 years isn't enough? Being that this is my daily world, I don't think most people really understand how long 10 years is in business. It is an eternity as I previously mentioned and Microsoft gave all these other companies a lifeline with that course of action.
I can see both sides here and can't really identify any as inherently better. Importantly, the issues some said the CMA was just bullshitting are identified as a genuine concern by all regulators, so either they are all bullshitting or keeping and eye on future market progression is a Good Idea worthy of regulation.
I think we can. I guess my point is, CMA could not have requested a term longer than 10 years for streaming. It's not something that ABK may even do for their own titles once licensing is involved. It's the reason Forza's go away on the store and only those with the remaining hard copies can still play it. I suspect if they asked for more than 10 years, MS would have to decline on the basis of it not being logistically possible is where I'm thinking.
Except it doesn't actually benefit the consumers in the console market because we are still looking at a duopoly of Nintendo and Sony with MS a distant third. That is the market with hundreds of millions of gamers.
But now what happens if the game isn't avalible on the playstation ? Lets say wow. If MS makes a native version of wow for the xbox and puts it on xcloud how exactly does it work for the playstation ? Does MS also have to allow it on psn ?
The consumers are gamers. That includes those on PC and those streaming on TV and mobile. The console duopoly remains, largely because MS failed to compete in a difficult market for the third player where many others have also struggled. Although in the UK it's a triopoly and XB does well here.
One or two? Doesn't it state "All current and future Activision Blizzard games"? I guess the definition of "current" is up for debate, but by my count there are over 20 Xbox 360 games available as BC games on Xbox One. That might means any cloud provider could license those games for free as well.
I might have missed that
Certainly they were willing if they signed on to do it.
er, not if they had to do it for the merger to be approved
They don't need this merger to be approved. No one is forcing them to merge.
