You do realize that less than 5% is based on recent CMA merger cases where CAT was involved? The CMA reversed the decision in less than 5% of those cases.Shall I pull a number out of my ass just like all the so called experts here? Nah I'll just wait, but you all do make me laugh.
Question: Why didn't Microsoft object to those numbers when the CMA first shared them and made them public in their Provisional Findings report?You missed out the part of my post that dealt with that. When I say this country I mean the UK as I'm English.
"The CMA "made fundamental errors in its calculation and assessment of market share data for cloud gaming services", Microsoft will say at the Competition Appeal Tribunal."
That's part of the appeal, they will dispute that Gamepass Ultimate subscribers = Xcloud users. I presume they have the data to back that up.
So that I understand, people here are hoping and cheering for external, political pressure to force an independent regulator to change their ruling because MS is so big they deserve to get their way?
Riky and Negotiator doing their best to pick up the slack since goalus and sus got banned.
You missed out the part of my post that dealt with that. When I say this country I mean the UK as I'm English.
"The CMA "made fundamental errors in its calculation and assessment of market share data for cloud gaming services", Microsoft will say at the Competition Appeal Tribunal."
That's part of the appeal, they will dispute that Gamepass Ultimate subscribers = Xcloud users. I presume they have the data to back that up.
You're not wrong. This is exactly what it is and it how works.I dont see how GPU users don't have access to cloud. Especially after someone explained to me how GPU ultimate works.
I dont see how GPU users don't have access to cloud. Especially after someone explained to me how GPU ultimate works.
Having access to it doesn't make u a user. In other words, you can have 50 million GPU subscribers of which 5 million use the cloud function, and have 10 million PS+ Premium members, and still have PS+ Premium have the bigger market share.
Based on statistics that Microsoft shared, we know that the overwhelming majority (up to 80%) of Game Pass subscribers use or have used xCloud.Having access to it doesn't make u a user. In other words, you can have 50 million GPU subscribers of which 5 million use the cloud function, and have 10 million PS+ Premium members, and still have PS+ Premium have the bigger market share.
Having access to it doesn't make u a user. In other words, you can have 50 million GPU subscribers of which 5 million use the cloud function, and have 10 million PS+ Premium members, and still have PS+ Premium have the bigger market share.
But you magically become a user at any moment on any device. Everyone with GPU has access to Xcloud with the way Microsofts make it work.
If Microsoft wants to fix their mistake all they have to do is remove Xcloud from GPU. Then make it a separate subscription service. That way the two are separate and the numbers will be smaller.
Because Microsoft also counts you as an xCloud user.Sure, Microsoft could to that. At the same time, it's unfair to say it's Microsoft's mistake when - from what I've seen so far - CMA is the only one inflating xCloud's market share.
When I first subscribed to GPU, I tested a cloud game to check its latency out of curiousity. Haven't touched cloud gaming ever since (years). Yet CMA count's me as an active xCloud user inflating its market share. That's procedurally wrong and there are ways to determine active xCloud users withing GPU without saying 'every person who ever used xCloud withing GPU is an active cloud user".
Sure, Microsoft could to that. At the same time, it's unfair to say it's Microsoft's mistake when - from what I've seen so far - CMA is the only one inflating xCloud's market share.
When I first subscribed to GPU, I tested a cloud game to check its latency out of curiousity. Haven't touched cloud gaming ever since (years). Yet CMA count's me as an active xCloud user inflating its market share. That's procedurally wrong and there are ways to determine active xCloud users withing GPU without saying 'every person who ever used xCloud withing GPU is an active cloud user".
Microsoft lawyers were still reeling from finding out the Sony PS4 game was Spider-Man, not Superman. As a result, there wasn't enough time to fix all the errors in the CMA report.why didnt microsoft have an issue with this before when they had the chance to make CMA aware of their "mistake"? its too late to play dumb now. micrsoft cant worm their way out now.
why didnt microsoft have an issue with this before when they had the chance to make CMA aware of their "mistake"? its too late to play dumb now. micrsoft cant worm their way out now.
Because Microsoft also counts you as an xCloud user.
That's how everyone does it. That's how you have over 20 million Halo Infinite players and 30 million Forza Horizon 5 players.
The CMA used the same methodology that Microsoft uses. And the rest of the industry also uses it, as a matter of fact. What's the problem with this?
Marketing statement or not -- was it correct or incorrect? That's all that matters.The problem is one statement is used for marketing purposes and the other statement is used as a factual substantiation of a B69 usd merger. It's called due dilligence vs. PR.
It's the same thing with player count. For marketing you say '10 million players played game A', but in reality you know that 4 million uninstalled it after 2 minutes.The problem is one statement is used for marketing purposes and the other statement is used as a factual substantiation of a B69 usd merger. It's called due dilligence vs. PR.
Marketing statement or not -- was it correct or incorrect? That's all that matters.
And Microsoft has yet to establish that the information the CMA used is incorrect. It's worth remembering that Microsoft did not object to xCloud's 70% market share when the CMA shared that data in their PF report.
Why didn't MS object to it? They impliedly accepted that data.
Besides misrepresented evidence on Microsoft’s past behaviour, the CMA’s analysis of incentives relies solely on (i) speculation regarding future growth of cloud gaming and (ii) Microsoft’s alleged pre-existing strength in this space. Neither provides a sufficient basis for the conclusions drawn by the CMA.
(a) As set out in section 3.C, the CMA cannot conclude on the balance of probabilities that cloud gaming services will become profitable in the next five years. More generally, the CMA has assumed without evidence that Microsoft would []. 223 However, [], there is no basis on which the CMA can conclude that Microsoft would be incentivized to seek to harm rivals by withholding content. On the contrary, the NVIDIA Agreement shows that Microsoft is incentivized to distribute its content widely, including through alternative cloud gaming business models (e.g., BYOG) to its own.
(b) The CMA’s claim that Microsoft “already holds a strong position in cloud gaming”224 is based on a misleading analysis of shares of supply. In particular, the CMA estimates that Microsoft’s share increased from []% in 2021 to []% in 2022. However:
- First, as set out in section 3.C above, []. This is not comparable to subscribers to a service like NVIDIA GFN which is a standalone cloud gaming service and []. This is because being a standalone cloud gaming service signals that registered users, and even more so subscribers, to NVIDIA GFN have actively selected this service for its cloud offering and []
- Second, even using MAUs across all platforms, the CMA’s 2022 estimates are flawed and overstate Microsoft’s share of supply. In particular, while Microsoft’s share of supply in terms of average MAUs is calculated based on figures for January to September 2022, NVIDIA’s share of supply is based solely on its MAUs as of January 2022. Given that cloud gaming is a “growing and promising market”225, taking a snapshot of NVIDIA’s MAUs as of January 2022 and comparing it to Microsoft’s MAUs for a later period is liable to present a heavily distorted view of the market. Comparing like-for-like, using Microsoft’s average MAUs as of January 2022 it would have a share of supply of []%. Excluding gamers accessing Xbox Cloud Gaming on console, Microsoft’s average MAUs for 2022 are []. However, without figures for NVIDIA and other providers covering the remainder of 2022 it is not possible to accurately estimate 2022 shares of supply based on MAUs.
You don't get to discard your PR when it is used against you. There is such a thing as consequences.The problem is one statement is used for marketing purposes and the other statement is used as a factual substantiation of a B69 usd merger. It's called due dilligence vs. PR.
You don't get to discard your PR when it is used against you. There is such a thing as consequences.
1. If you assume the information is incorrect, you're essentially saying that Microsoft lied and xCloud did not have 20 million users. That's a huge claim and a lawsuit waiting to happen. You'll have to back up that claim with something instead of simply saying "factually incorrect" without any evidence.Exactly, is it correct or incorrect. So what's the relevance what Microsoft said in PR? You invoked it. Microsoft also said that GamePass would not cannibalize game sales, yet CMA found that internal communication has talked about the cannibalizing effects. It's about factfinding.
Also, Microsoft did object to it in paragraph 3.86b.
What's weird is these same peopel that complain about the CMA using gamepass ultimate to countBut you magically become a user at any moment on any device. Everyone with GPU has access to Xcloud with the way Microsofts make it work.
If Microsoft wants to fix their mistake all they have to do is remove Xcloud from GPU. Then make it a separate subscription service. That way the two are separate and the numbers will be smaller.
Trillion dollar companies don't lie.1. If you assume the information is incorrect, you're essentially saying that Microsoft lied and xCloud did not have 20 million subscribers. That's a huge claim and a lawsuit waiting to happen. You'll have to back up that claim with something instead of simply saying "factually incorrect" without any evidence.
2. Microsoft did not object. They are objecting now when they are filing the appeal. But Microsoft did not object when the CMA shared this data in their Provisional Findings report months ago. In the same report, the CMA shared the console SLC-related calculation, and Microsoft did object to that but didn't say a word on the xCloud market share. Why?
It isn't incorrect, it is just a different point of view. But the fact that Microsoft released the data the way it did means it hold weight. it is an exaggeration that was technically correct, but it has MS' seal of approval.You get to disgard the PR if it's factually incorrect though.
2. Microsoft did not object. They are objecting now when they are filing the appeal. But Microsoft did not object when the CMA shared this data in their Provisional Findings report months ago. In the same report, the CMA shared the console SLC-related calculation, and Microsoft did object to that but didn't say a word on the xCloud market share. Why?
Was going to ask Sony for the link but it's there in filings published on the 16th March, filed by MS's lawyers on the 2ndMicrosoft did not object. They are objecting now when they are filing the appeal. But Microsoft did not object when the CMA shared this data in their Provisional Findings report months ago. In the same report, the CMA shared the console SLC-related calculation, and Microsoft did object to that but didn't say a word on the xCloud market share. Why?
While looking through the documentation, I came across something interesting from the Korean Fair Trade Commission.
MS's share of the gaming market by country
Korea 5~10%
Japan 0~5%
UK 40~45%
United States 40~45%
EU 15~20%
Sources: Company submissions, data from national competition authorities
Sure, Microsoft could to that. At the same time, it's unfair to say it's Microsoft's mistake when - from what I've seen so far - CMA is the only one inflating xCloud's market share.
When I first subscribed to GPU, I tested a cloud game to check its latency out of curiousity. Haven't touched cloud gaming ever since (years). Yet CMA count's me as an active xCloud user inflating its market share. That's procedurally wrong and there are ways to determine active xCloud users withing GPU without saying 'every person who ever used xCloud withing GPU is an active cloud user".
why didnt microsoft have an issue with this before when they had the chance to make CMA aware of their "mistake"? its too late to play dumb now. micrsoft cant worm their way out now.
Their objection wasn't good enoughWas going to ask Sony for the link but it's there in filings published on the 16th March, filed by MS's lawyers on the 2nd
They also did argue that cloud gaming isn't a separate market but that's just interesting for me.
Maybe we are using different definitions of the word object.
It isn’t incorrect though.You get to disgard the PR if it's factually incorrect though.
Why would it?I guess that Sony looking poor on the recent PS Showcase ain't working after all.
Obviously that's a different topic then whether MS objected now or previously. That was the only point of my commentTheir objection wasn't good enough
True, I get that. Just saying I don't think this point of theirs stuck very well with the regulator because they still had the majority. MS literally objected everything including the importance of CoDs removal because it's beneficial to object every point and see what sticks.Obviously that's a different topic then whether MS objected now or previously. That was the only point of my comment
Allegedly korea see cloud gaming as a separate market? Can't translate my self to verify.
Objecting to everything isn't that surprising, I don't think any of them will stick and if they do, the CMA will just work around the stuff that the CAT throws out.True, I get that. Just saying I don't think this point of theirs stuck very well with the regulator because they still had the majority. MS literally objected everything including the importance of CoDs removal because it's beneficial to object every point and see what sticks.
Treating cloud and console as the same market might not stick for them either. Especially as they have been using separated console marketshare to show their weakness. Otherwise they should have just used both combined as a single marketshare in their arguments and piecharts. That was not beneficial to them though because it would have painted a different picture. They want their cake and to eat it too so they objected everything on both sides wherever possible as things changed. Both for the removal of COD and not removing CoD, for separated markets and not separated markets, for cloud adding potentially a lot of users and cloud being insignificant. They've objected everything.
I asked the ftc why they changed their mind. They replied in one wordInteresting...
Moreso, the fact that all these countries have approved the deal and don't see it as some threat to consumers, or even competitors. Minus the UK, of course.
Today's the popcorn day.
I wanna see how MS fumbles this badly
NGL, would be 10x better if the CAT just posts this as their official response:I think the only thing we're guaranteed to get today is a schedule of proceedings moving forwards.
That sucks.I think the only thing we're guaranteed to get today is a schedule of proceedings moving forwards.
UK.So. CMA said that Microsoft has 60-70% of cloud gaming market. Is that only for UK or globally?
If latter, it is certainly funny, since Korean FTC said that Microsoft has 50-55% of global cloud gaming market...