Nobody is forcing them to merge because they want the merge.
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
I beg you to watch the video by Vestager and listen to the language she used.Nobody is forcing them to merge because they want the merge.
"we were given a remedy, a 10 year license for free, for existing and coming games, now to be available. So not only do we see this as solving a problem, we also see this as pro-competitive..."
"...This is about a competition concern that needed to be resolved so that a merger can go on"
The remedy was offered by Microsoft as per her words, this was not EU's remedy that MS would have to accept in order for it to pass. EU found this remedy to be acceptable, that is why it passed. The same remedy CMA found to be unacceptable.
Er yeah. EU requested for remedies, MS provided them, EU accepted them. Simple.
Cynicalking
Regular
Er, meaning they where willing to sign.
"Microsoft has confirmed that the EU forced it to automatically offer Activision Blizzard games on competing cloud gaming services. Microsoft will offer this globally"
Forced to sign otherwise blocked merger
Console gamers and pc gamers are different segments otherwise we'd have to bring in cell phone gaming of which ms has what a fraction of a percent if even. Your third sentence is just showing that the UK and EU shouldn't be worried about cloud gaming at all because if the console duopoly is fine because other companies failed to compete , the cloud streaming market is fine as a duopoly because other companies failed to compete.
They requested that it be automatic. This streamlines and tidies things up the remedy. This isn’t forced to sign. This is the difference between a behavioural remedy that is manageable and can easily be regulated, and one that is not."Microsoft has confirmed that the EU forced it to automatically offer Activision Blizzard games on competing cloud gaming services. Microsoft will offer this globally"
Forced to sign otherwise blocked merger
MS: We're offering these games to all of these service providers across the globe to all of our competitors today, is this sufficient?
EU: Can you just make this offer automatic for anyone for now and into the future for the next 10 years? this makes it both easier and enforceable.
MS: OK.
EU: Done.
yea, forced to sign.
I am still waiting on the details on this. Like I asked someone else before what happens with say wow. Wow is on battle.net, if ms ported it to the xbox and put it on xcloud how would they provide it for sony to offer it on psn streaming ? There is no native engine on playstation for it so what happens ?
I get how it would work on geforce now and the other companies basicly running remote log in vpns for games. You buy wow on battle net , log into geforce now or whatever streaming service and then log into your battle net and launch the game. But Sony's streaming doesn't work like that.
So would Ms have to do the development work to put this on playstation ? Does sony have to do the dev work ? Does it just not matter because its on the other streaming platforms ?
You can't buy WoW on the playstation store, but you and Sony have the license to stream WoW on PS Now+.
In order for you to be able to play it on PS Now+, Sony would have to allow you to have access to the content you own (elsewhere) on PS Now+. Ie; they would have to allow Steam or Battle.net ecosystem to run on PS Now+.
Yes and no. Yes, it was a condition that this be the case in the EU. But if it was such a concession that MS was upset about it, why would they adapt this globally? The EU has basically no power to force Microsoft to license streaming in SE Asia, but according to all of the reporting as of when the merger closes, that will be the case in Asia, the EU, USA and everywhere else.
Ah so in the end for their main competitor they don't have to worry and in the console market they gain a defacto exclusivity on ABK games. In fact if sony doesn't sign a cod deal with them (which so far they haven't) they can even stop making cod natively for the playstation and sony would have to allow steam/battle.net/xbox on the platform.
I can see why MS wouldn't mind this as they have only offered a 10 year contract for cod on playstation and nintendo but none of the other games.
I am sure Nintendo doesn't care if wow or diablo is streaming to the switch as they would still get a cut of that $60 bucks. Hell they would likely welcome MS just handling the game instances through xcloud at that point.
Sony would likewise be pissed as MS would then be reaping the dlc/micro/battle pass profits without sony involved.
Also sounds like Ms can still offer exclusive content like battle pass accelerators or special skins on their store fronts only as more incentive to get people to switch.
I think even worse for Sony is that I can see Microsoft pulling a Minecraft with some ABK games, in that the DLC and user accounts are the same on all platforms. But when you add in streaming.... That could mean that on Switch you could stream COD from Xcloud, Geforce Now, Luna or some other service because you purchased COD on a compatible platform for those services. If Sony doesn't allow you to stream COD from your Steam/Xbox/Windows/Amazon/Epic account, with shared DLC, save files, loadouts, etc., they will be at a competitive disadvantage.
The deal signed is about streaming licensing, not store licensing.
In the console space, the access to play games is bound to the hardware.
In the streaming space, it technically doesn't not have to be.
So as long as you own said content, and the provider is willing to serve your content, then you have the license to play your content on the platform that is willing to serve it. MS cannot profit from that company serving you that content.
So PS Now typically only plays today say playstation 4/5 games. But they could offer now, ABK PC titles if you owned them on Steam or some other store and serve them there. But Sony won't because they have their own store that they want you to buy from, and they don't to be _just_ an access provider, or they would need to create a Sony Streaming games store themselves (and somehow work out the split of the subscription fees between Sony and ABK) then they could stream it onto their network using PC hardware.
So you still need to buy COD from battle.net, or Steam, or Xbox, Playstation, or Nintendo, (and possibly now the Windows store). That is you owning the license to play the game. Now you need an access provider to play it on, and all of your access providers if they can strike a deal with these stores, can stream those games to you for free.
So basically, Geforce Now is the best example of leveraging another store and just charging for access.
And Meta also offers something like this, they would be able to use another store to stream games to their VR headsets. And so forth.
And Asus is not far, as they offer access to a great deal of many stores on their ROG handheld - now they can tap into streaming as well for additional power.
This is not the same as being forced to offer ABK title to any store and platform that is asking for it.
tldr;
* you need to purchase the license to play the game from some place
* you need to purchase the access from some provider that is partnered with the store to serve that content
- the access provider or you is not charged in that process to stream said content (the remedy)
This also means, any TV provider can stream your content, provided they partnered with a store. So imagine an App on a LG TV or Samsung TV, and you could access your steam content and stream directly to your TV, or Amazon Firestick etc. Your own local telco could offer a video game streaming service, they just need to confirm the license with the store owner.
The possibilities for opening up "access" has been blown open wide. But the number of participating stores is still small.
The way that I would see it work is:
APIs would confer with said store that you own the license to said game.
If yes, serve title to end user.
So this is a good spot for a internet provider to sit at, since they typically own the last mile anyway and they are dumping all sorts of equipment for netflix et al in there. So may as well dump your own streaming hardware in there and partner up.
Last edited:
Their main disadvantage is their lack of motivation to heavily invest in the space. Everything outside of their main console hardware has to be a success without a heavy investment from Sony. It seems like trimming their divisions while forcing its PS business to the forefront has made Sony gun shy.
the fact that a regulator replies on the decision of another regulator is kinda telling. I mean, it's as if CMA are miffed.
I wasn't so much talking about the hardware or technology that Sony uses would be at a disadvantage, more that based on Sony's lack of enthusiasm for allowing DLC and other transactions that are from outside their ecosystem available on their platform would put them at a disadvantage in the streaming space, if you could stream COD on your Samsung TV and have all of the DLC etc. from your Steam/Windows/Xbox/Epic/Battle.net/GOG/Switch version but your Playstation content is locked to your Playstation hardware. Sony was the last holdout on crossplay/crossbuy with Minecraft and Fortnite, as a historical example.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yes, the remedy that MS offered and the EU signed off on with some adjustments (all cloud game streaming companies if they ask instead of just the ones currently signed) means they must allow users to stream any MS published games they own for free, but there is no language in the remedy that MS has to share any revenue from those games (IE - DLC, etc.).
Other companies would still have to presumably negotiate with MS for any share of revenue from those games but MS have to allow anyone on those streaming services to stream the games they own with no fees.
So, I could potentially see some larger company not allowing MS games to be streamed on their service without some form of revenue sharing. But then, that would be the competitor's choice, not Microsoft's.
Regards,
SB
So at the end of the day sony would have to build out support on psn to stream from a platform that battle.net is on for instance. I don't see that happening.
I don't think it will really help ISPs as just having access to activision games and only to have access to them for 10 years isn't going to do much. They would still need to gain access to a lot of streaming game content to have a person choose them over say xcloud or geforce now or luna
I am sure CMA is pissed because ultimately if they are the last one standing they will be forced to comply with it passing. People say that MS doesn't want to upset the UK or be forced to pull out but it wont come down to that. The UK wont want to loose out on MS/ABK investments or any of their partners or companies that require their software to thrive and grow. They also wouldn't want to deal with the headaches that will happen from they themselves having to find something to move to from MS products. Also the politicians wont want to loose out on MS money.
I am sure the CMA was banking on the FTC and EU to come to the same conclusions. But the EU looked at the situation and found a way to make it work and the FTC is ultimately going to loose in court.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
They wouldn't even have to do that, they could just contract with another cloud provider (MS, Amazon, Google, NVidia, whoever) for the hardware and infrastructure.
Regards,
SB
Similar threads
