Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And yet when the CMA advised Microsoft to remove Call of Duty to get an approval, Microsoft and Activision refused. A weird decision for something not important according to Microsoft.Sssshhhh, it's OK. We all know that everything gaming related lives or dies based on Call of Duty.It's the only important gaming IP in all of gaming and if you don't have it, well, you don't exist.
How would you explain that?
Chandler55
Newcomer
I think the idea is that if Sony created a cloud gaming service, they will want the usual 30% cut of microtransactions that they do currently, like when someone buys vbucks on playstation. Microsoft would want to retain 100%
but I believe current cloud services like GeforceNow dont ask for cuts, they just straight up use steam on a pc. All the revenue is only from the monthly fee I presume, so im not sure how this will play out
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
This is the same Microsoft who want to pay Apple nothing for xCloud subscriptions provided to iOS owners but want to keep their 30% cut selling software and services on Xbox. Do not expect any consistency from big companies when it comes to profits.
Chandler55
Newcomer
This is the same Microsoft who want to pay Apple nothing for xCloud subscriptions provided to iOS owners but want to keep their 30% cut selling software and services on Xbox. Do not expect any consistency from big companies when it comes to profits.
well I dont want to get into it in this thread but I don't think apple deserves the 30% cut as much as the game consoles. Xbox/Sony/Steam do a lot more work in to getting people to buy games and its more symbiotic I feel, especially with the hardware being loss leaders
I dont know where I stand though on the cloud gaming payment cut, feel like sony should get 30% though on in-app purchases just as if it wasnt cloud gaming
It is the CMA's responsibility to somewhat level the playing field by preventing anti-competitive tactics. If you see that as "picking between winners and losers" then what are government contracts (of which Microsoft has been awarded many) and courts ? The nation-states have ALWAYS had this discretion inherently built into their system and if they want to explicitly use it to regulate their market within their own interpretation then who's to stop them ?
They see a risk, not certainty and that's the difference. It's fine if you disagree with their decision but just know that they did give a proper justification in that context ...
The CMA can't help Microsoft if they don't want to take steps to de-risk (or divest) because it's absolutely within their power to prevent monopolies from through anti-competitive means ...
History is littered with companies that were dominating an industry that are either forgotten or lost their status completely. Recent examples include AOL, Altavista, Blackberry, and Palm. Look at those companies' declines and go back 10 years to see how dominants they were. 10 years is a pretty long time in the technology space.
This is exactly how many felt when Sony, a much larger company than Sega, Nintendo, Atari or upstarts like 3DO, entered the console space. Sony had much deeper pockets. Also, working back to the point I made above, Sega went from being a force in the console space to being almost forgotten once Sony arrived. It didn't even take them 10 years.
NVIDIA: Find us Online
Find us online. List of our worldwide social networking sites.
www.nvidia.com
-----
Regarding MS being the largest player in cloud, isn't it established that Geforce Now is actually bigger? XCloud can only be accessed by Gamepass Ultimate subscribers, and doesn't GFN have nearly as many accounts as there are Gamepass accounts (Counting PC only, console only, and ultimate). I know the other players in the cloud space are likely smaller, but there's no way MS are 50% of that market. I doubt they are even the leader in raw number of users. Maybe in hours of use, though.
According to numbers found in cma papers x cloud has capacity for 5 000 concurrent users.
Ofc number of GP users is much higher than that but it seems that capacity is enough. Perhaps not enough interest for x cloud.
In the UK.
Oh silly me. Facepalm.
It's alright and natural to think that as well. I've seen this discussion elsewhere and it took a while for us to get to the point of it being clarified they were talking about the UK specifically.
The Reason Regulators Blocked Microsoft's Activision Deal Makes No Sense
The CMA’s decision hinges on cloud gaming tech that no one believes in yet
kotaku.com
Thats actually showing the point. These companies failed in the highly competitive environment and the competing giants absorbed the market and continued. For bluechip companies like MS and google 10 years are nothing are low risk long term investments. New and high risk companies standing on shaky grounds are the ones whose 10 years are treated as critical. Hence why MS can make long term investments that see further to the future and is willing to give 10 year contracts while smaller businesses that are reliant on content are trying to take whatever is available fast because if they dont succeed at edtablishing a good foundation they will lose more.
Its the reason why Sega almost went bankrupt and died with the Saturn by having millions in debt, whereas the original XBOX costed billions of losses for MS and they kept going. The horizon stretches much further for a company like MS
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I'm with you on this The whole idea that a company like Rockstar can spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a product, gambling that it will sell and make money, and the people in-between you and them take 30% of what the customer pays still blows my mind.
Based on a lot of posts in this thread, a lot of people do not know what monopoly regulators do, nor have any understanding of the narrow circumstances in which they have agency to act.
If global regulators interceded in markets like some people here want them to do in the console space, Microsoft would be absolutely boned because two big profit drivers for Microsoft - server software, services and Office - are by far, vastly and ludicrously - dominating those the desktop OS and productively software suite markets.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
I still think MS is going to get their way in the end somehow. I can think of a few workarounds and I imagine MS' legal team can think of even more. I don't really care that much about ABK myself, though I'd love to see Blizzard games on GP. It bothers me a lot more that the CMA's arguments are so weak and that they have the power to block on such weak arguments and that the net result is that Sony will continue to face very little competition in the global market. We'll be back to the PS3 days with a super arrogant Sony that is bad for gamers. Competition is good and this deal would put MS back in the race a lot better than the more dubious prospects of "organic" development.
Of course it's UK only because it's the CMA, but that changes nothing. Since the CMA is only looking at UK concerns, it's still less than 10k streaming customers or less according to them. What we need to know is what Sony's streaming capacity is, and what nVidia's streaming capacity is. Hasn't Sony outsold Microsoft almost 2:1 in UK, but XCloud is that popular that it overcomes that deficit? I know there is the option to have Gamepass Ultimate without an Xbox, but I can't imagine that's a popular option.
iceberg187
Regular
To take your terminology, Microsoft did the ultimate in de-risking everything for these other providers. They were going to get Call of Duty on their service. None of these companies will be able to do that now because assuredly, they won't be able to afford the asking fee of it. Activision has a very public stance against cloud gaming so they have no reason to even get into streaming COD anywhere. Now, imagine that cloud gaming is the future, do you know where it's going to be at? On only Microsoft's and Sony's streaming platforms, with everyone else in the cold. At least with the acquisition of ABK, the other cloud companies had a chance to compete on a more level playing field.
Also, going by history. WiiU has COD, only sold 10 million units. Switch doesn't have COD, sold over 100 million units. Call of Duty is not this all important input that is needed. It's been placed up to this near mythical stature and it's just not that. All they did ironically, is ensure Microsoft dominance if there is ever a cloud future.
"All of the CMA’s theories of harm in this case are premised on one overarching concern: that Activision’s game catalogue – in particular the Call of Duty franchise – is so important that it will enable Xbox to foreclose its competitors in gaming. But that is false by any objective measure."And yet when the CMA advised Microsoft to remove Call of Duty to get an approval, Microsoft and Activision refused. A weird decision for something not important according to Microsoft.
How would you explain that?
It’s hard to disagree with that. But this is PR BS coming from both sides. Sony will die without cod is equally absurd.
The CMA believed that Activision Blizzard would've offered their content on cloud gaming platforms regardless if they got big enough ...
Offering COD for 10 years on other streaming platforms isn't 'de-risking' since there's a strong possibility of Microsoft keeping COD permanently on their own platforms after that. A 'de-risking' move to the CMA would've been divesting COD to a 3rd party where there's a real open chance of keeping COD available to other parties for 10+ years (or indefinitely). The CMA knows very well that big businesses can just cheat the system by running down the timer and they absolutely do NOT want that at all so they prefer structural remedies because it makes it harder for them cheat since they come out with less control than otherwise ...
The CMA countered that the success behind Nintendo platforms are independent from titles like COD because Nintendo platforms have far less overlap in content with other platforms. Cloud gaming platforms right now have much more overlap with current generation consoles so it's not out of the realm of possibility that COD could be an important input for cloud gaming ...
Sony's arrogance costed them and gave MS the opportunity to establish the XBOX as a brand worth taking seriously. Sony almost died. Literally.
I do not agree that buying off established multiplatform juggernauts is the way at all. People chose PS4 because it was a great product, not because Sony used monopoly tactics.
Those millions of players bought PS4 because it also had access to a great wealth of multiplatform games. If MS is allowed to buy the multiplatform studios that made games that millions of PS gamers traditionally enjoyed to "level the playing field" you are actually punishing these consumers for their choice.
Thats not the right way. A taste of the right way we got during the PS360 era where MS and Sony were coming up with new franchises and improved their existing IPs. The Gears of War trilogy for example made people choose XBOX because it was an original offering not because it was snatched. MS had TREMENDOUS opportunity with the 360 to build a fantastic line up of original exclusives.
They missed the opportunity and screwed up with One like Sony did with the PS3 with no way to turn things around properly because their product was weak by design and didnt invest in their studios properly
And its not like Sony has a monopoly either. Its far from being a monopoly.
MS can really turn things around if they want to. But there is really ZERO marketing from them in many territories and their promising exclusive games from their studios have not shown any sign of life since the Series X was announced. The Series X is a great product but the PS5 is equally good with first parties delivering more often and it ripping the benefits from the migration of PS4 gamers because MS screwed up last gen and lost market share.
Similar threads
