Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13

iroboto said:
No desktop OS will ever unseat Windows, and not for a lack of trying or time. But one way they got unseated, in some manner, was that mobile flanked them, and mobile OS which doesn't compete with desktop OS, quickly became the default OS in the world, serving more people than the desktop variant.
Click to expand...
Mobile didn't flank Microsoft, Microsoft had Windows CE (then Handheld PC OS), which was a stylus/touch-friendly version of Windows with desktop-class capabilities in 1996. Windows CE kept being updated and getting better and better until Microsoft stopped developing it in 2006. iPhone released in 2007, then Google launched Android and by the time Microsoft realised what has happening, it was too late.

Microsoft didn't get flanked, Microsoft was asleep.
 
DSoup said:
Mobile didn't flank Microsoft, Microsoft had Windows CE (then Handheld PC OS), which was a stylus/touch-friendly version of Windows with desktop-class capabilities in 1996. Windows CE kept being updated and getting better and better until Microsoft stopped developing it in 2006. iPhone released in 2007, then Google launched Android and by the time Microsoft realised what has happening, it was too late.

Microsoft didn't get flanked, Microsoft was asleep.
Click to expand...
Lol yea they we’re pretty asleep.

As was Blackberry, I guess technically they had it worse than MS since they were actually the leading mobile OS smartphone prior to the Android and Apple devices.
 
Last edited:
DSoup said:
Mobile didn't flank Microsoft, Microsoft had Windows CE (then Handheld PC OS), which was a stylus/touch-friendly version of Windows with desktop-class capabilities in 1996. Windows CE kept being updated and getting better and better until Microsoft stopped developing it in 2006. iPhone released in 2007, then Google launched Android and by the time Microsoft realised what has happening, it was too late.

Microsoft didn't get flanked, Microsoft was asleep.
Click to expand...

The time when Microsoft was making a mobile OS and Intel were making ARM processors.
 
Lurkmass said:
It is within the CMA's remit to prevent ANY possible monopolies in the future whether anyone agree/disagree with their conclusions ...

The CMA wasn't impressed with Microsoft's proposal because they weren't solutions to the issues they raised up. How exactly does a temporary agreement with other parties to access their IPs that may remain popular in the future solve the problem of Microsoft going rogue ? It doesn't because all it does is it kicks the can down the road for the issue to still possibly persist where other parties are left at the mercy Microsoft who now has more leverage against other competitors ...

It can not be stressed enough that the CMA absolutely hate hate hates behavioural remedies since they believe that most issues can't be solved with just time alone and one of their main criticism of Microsoft's proposal was that it was too short lived to prevent anti-competitive practices in the long term. Behavioural remedies are only realistically an option to them if they can see that a problem will actually go away over time. The CMA takes a risk-based approach to their assessments because they realize that big businesses can just out game the market/system by simply waiting for the clock to run out which is exactly what they want to prevent from happening in the first place. The CMA often looks for structural remedies because they want contingency plans in case the original party refuses to cooperate. The risk of Microsoft monopolizing cloud gaming is potentially huge if COD, WoW, and Overwatch still stays popular in the future on top of their cloud infrastructure already using Windows so as a suggested de-risking measure by the CMA, they wanted to see some divestment in content production capacity to specifically lower this risk ...

There's not much that's unreasonable behind the CMA's hypothesis since cloud most gaming services already uses Windows VMs (Google's Stadia is dead which just leaves Sony's PS Now left) so they don't want to give Microsoft the option to starve competitors out of potential access to content ...
Click to expand...
All this means is that the CMA is now in the business of picking winners and losers based on gut feelings. I can think Play Doh can grow on trees and then enact green laws around it. There isn't any data one way or the other to it happening but it's 'possible'. Anything is theoretically possible in business. A nascent market should not be governed like this.

This is from page 368 of the report.

Cloud gaming is an early-stage and growing dynamic market, and there is considerable uncertainty as to how it will develop and what competing business models will emerge. We believe, for the reasons set out in detail in Chapter 8, that foreclosure of Microsoft's rivals in cloud gaming services may be expected to result in substantial harm to competition in this market. We recognise that we cannot predict with any certainty how exactly the market might evolve absent the Merger (or if the Merger is allowed to proceed on the basis of the Microsoft Cloud Remedy). Neither, in our view, can the Parties or third parties. We consider this represents an inherent specification risk in the Microsoft Cloud Remedy – even if the remedy could be well-specified to cover the current status of the market, it may not be suited to future changes. This means that we cannot have a high degree of confidence that the terms of the remedy would be sufficiently well-specified to address these unpredictable market changes.
Click to expand...

Look at the bolded and then acknowledge that through their response is that they are near certain Microsoft could be a monopoly though. It's asinine decision making. The CMA has predetermined Microsoft's dominance and they will find something to hang that thought on.
 
fehu said:
If there are around so many cloud services, how is possible that google failed at it?
Click to expand...
cost!
If you are a small cloud service provider, with a tiny expense footprint, even with tiny margins you can stay alive.
But if you are google, you expanded everywhere at once, had a massive marketing push, built your own studios etc, your cost structure is extremely high, but your revenues are extremely low, therefore - bust.
 
B-Nice said:
The ‘’making games is too hard!’ crew!
Click to expand...
that's a reductionist answer.

How do you know if MS put out 5 bangers a year the positions would flip with Sony or they would suddenly break the market 50/50 ?

It wouldn't and you are just assuming this would happen. Sony owns 75% of the market, why would someone who is invested in Sony suddenly buy a second console to play games on Xbox when they are perfectly happy playing games on their PlayStation?
 
fehu said:
If there are around so many cloud services, how is possible that google failed at it?
Click to expand...
Failed business model, cut and run like Google does nearly everything else that isn't an immediate runaway success. Microsoft didn't become this 'leader' through being a low price leader or through differentiation. They did it just by staying the course. Some companies failed and left and others haven't even made a faithful attempt to do it. None of that is Microsoft's fault. If cloud were supposed to be this successful in the future, why isn't everyone making a mad dash to do it now. Just like we heard the 'Metaverse' was the future. Sure, I'm going to buy the Oculus Quest 3 when it launches but I'm never going to have my avatar in a business meeting on it.
 
"Another competitor [REDACTED] submitted that the failure of Google Stadia shows the importance of CoD [= Call of Duty] compared to other gaming franchises, and that CoD’s role in attracting consumers to platforms is not directly proportionate to engagement alone. This competitor submitted that [...] further submitted that, despite having these games, Google Stadia did not have CoD, and that this prevented Google Stadia from reaching a meaningful number of [users]."
Click to expand...

Mhhhh... I can't guess who this competitor is...
 
BRiT said:
Not sure if this was posted already: Another cloud provider agreement.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1651832015002677248

https://twitter.com/x/status/1651832983328784385
Click to expand...
this seems to be part of their statement saying that the EU is now a more attractive place to invest.

@Shortbread dunno whether it's official or not, but that's one hell of a job they are putting into that twitter account, if they are amateur.

@Nesh guess it's more like a way to pledge some allegiance and support. afaik MS made an agreement with nVidia regarding cloud gaming during this process.

On another note....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1651261746626150403
 
Last edited:
mr magoo said:
I don’t follow, you assume that after 10 years I will not have anything else to offer just msft content? Even if Microsoft decide to hard lock all the content after 10 years so what? Is it end of the world? Do they own 99% of games realased ? Will game market collapse?
Click to expand...

Sssshhhh, it's OK. We all know that everything gaming related lives or dies based on Call of Duty. :p It's the only important gaming IP in all of gaming and if you don't have it, well, you don't exist. :p

Regards,
SB
 
pharma said:
You accept a bribe for "grazing rights in the pasture" for 10 years? Then what, rely on Microsoft's goodwill toward their partners and consumers without any legal safety net?
Microsoft strategy to open their game catalog to other platforms should have been in place way before the Activision bribes. Maybe then I'd have more confidence in what happens after 10 years.
Click to expand...
10 years is a long time. It's enough to continue getting more content creators on their platform and is more than enough time to not only create your own small studios but have them release 1-2 if not 3 games depending on the scope. Also they can grow outside of gaming itself. For instance Nvidia could grow cloud rendering so while some people might not be able to afford professional rendering boards from them they could always rent time on them . Even just in terms of gaming. Xcloud is limited to xbox series s hardware . 8 core amd zen 2 + 16gigs of ram + rdna 2 . Nvidia for instance keeps upgrading the hardware in geforce now. If you want to play with higher resolutions or frame rates or just better graphical options then people even in 10 years will pick geforce now.

Then at the end of the 10 year contract Ms may still be willing to sign off on deals with these companies. They continue to release games on steam despite having their own pc gaming store so why would they cut off small companies. it could be a different story if one of these companies become the dominate cloud player but outside of Nvidia , I doubt any of these would.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Activision is making more money on PC than consoles for the first time
Replies
6
Views
1K
Johnny Awesome
J
Cyan
Maybe Microsoft should create a Windows console a la Steam Deck but with many more options, when mobility gaming is one of their priorities-Activision
Replies
15
Views
2K
eastmen
E
BRiT
Activision closes some Blizzard offices [2020-10-08]
Replies
2
Views
1K
Pressure
P
iroboto
PC Game Pass, now includes EA Play! [PCGP, XGP:PC]
22 23 24
Replies
460
Views
87K
Cyan
Cyan
D
  • Locked
Microsoft spending $1 Billion Dollars to stop PS3 Developers!!
2 3
Replies
45
Views
9K
Farid
F
Back
Top