Dick Jones
Gold Member
Beard costs Activision 3bn
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
GHG
Member
Well the documents that
Banjo64
dug up revealed all.It's all about pushing a narrative, above all else. Which is why it's impossible to have a rational discussion with these people. Even when you present them with facts that debunk the arguments they put forward they just ignore and dismiss them out of hand. You can't change their mind or way of thinking because what is being presented doesn't come from them as an individual, it comes from a corporation and they are simply instructed to repeat that message.
It's exactly the same thing Florian did here when we talked about Microsoft's continued activity in Russia. I used to think that I'm dealing with really dense, stupid people when engaging with them, but the reality is that it's not that simple. These people are doing a job, to them it doesn't matter how they come across.
Last edited:
Ar¢tos
Member
A person with no facial hair should not be allowed to have that name.Beard costs Activision 3bn
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
~20 minutes to go for mine
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
The body language of the CMA's lawyer is quite awful so far. That's not gonna help him.
It's politically motivated, cloud is less than 2% of marketshare at best, and they know big companies who could afford it never made a lasting effort at all except for MS and Nvidia. Smaller stuff like that needs big companies to create an industry around it, for example, if Facebook quits VR, that industry is pretty much dead unless other competitors manage to increase their share to make into a viable market without Quest.
Giving COD and other MS games to other cloud competitors means they're getting to the fifth gear from the start, rather than begging and having to pay a fortune to have these titles, if nothing changes in 10 years, it means, as the VR, it as a market that hardly had a growth.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Depp vs Heard this ain't.
Last edited:
Bernoulli
M2 slut
he wants to be lord pannick
GHG
Member
Tell me you know nothing about small businesses without telling me you know nothing about small businesses.
Without large players with disproportionate resources dominating an industry, particularly one which is growing, it becomes easier for small businesses to get up and running, make their mark and get funding.
This idea that you need big players to first dominate an industry in order to create some kind of proof of concept for smaller players to then be able to get involved is so backwards it's unreal. If there is demand then there is demand and start ups will still be able to capture that even with the absence of megacorps doing everything they can to dominate an industry and squeeze smaller players out. The whole essense of small businesses and start ups is about identifying gaps in markets and then penetrating, you cannot penetrate where there is no gap.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Can someone share a direct link for the stream please, I can't seem to find it on the tribunal website via the twitter link.
Astray
Gold Member
Post in thread 'Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT|' https://www.neogaf.com/threads/microsoft-activision-deal-approval-watch-ot.1641775/post-268004504
Microsoft dropping the name of another professor who seem to be arguing against the market definitions. Professor Scott Morton if I am hearing right.
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Fuck, I'm out. This is incredibly boring. No one is saying "hearsay" or even talking about people shitting on the bed.
IGN: Too much lawyer talk. 2/10.
IGN: Too much lawyer talk. 2/10.
This is great, but you know different tastes.
Nope, not necessarily, they probably just want to starve the CMA re timing.
Last edited:
harry mason 1989
Banned
Yep
GHG
Member
Literally all the biggest hurdles I've encountered over the last ~7 years in running my own businesses have come about because the biggest players have cornered certain segments (or clients of the size that would single handedly be able to sustain a business like mine and then some) through ridiculous contractual agreements that were drawn up when the markets were in their infancy.
If the cloud industry is dominated by the likes of Microsoft and Nvidia, to such an extent that even Google found it difficult find reason to continue then what hope does that give even smaller players or even startups? And to make matters worse, the likes of Microsoft and Amazon also control a large proportion of the infrastructure and then Nvidia on the hardware side. When strictly looking at this deal it also gives Microsoft control of a lot of the software. So for a small startup wanting to get involved they need to go begging to Microsoft not only for infrastructure, but also for software? It's a joke scenario for anyone that isn't Microsoft or someone like Amazon who has the resources to go toe to toe.
People are kidding themselves if they think this deal will make things more favourable for startups/small businesses seeking to get a foothold in the cloud gaming industry.
Last edited:
Of course the sooner is the better for them but it's not like the July date is random.
They state that the deal is at risk of being jeopardized.
It's true and what many people here already observed. Going through a renegotiation phase with Activision with higher breakup fees and higher $/share price could kill the deal in July.
Last edited:
I think they used it cause it wasn't random, they are using that argument (deal jeopardized) as why the judge should expedite it.
I just saying that it is not the only potential motivation for that date/month.
Last edited:
Sometimes there are industries who needs big companies to promote them, VR without Facebook would be regarded as an ultra niche laggy growth because it would be too expensive to have an entry point, Quest and Quest 2 represented the bulk of sales share because they were by far the cheapest option that ran on PC and standalone, and fast foward, here we are, a struggling to grow market, too expensive to keep footing the bill, and too expensive to put the costs into customers.
Cloud gaming has been here for more than 10 years, with Onlive, Gaikai and PS Now for PS4, none of them did catch traction because of several issues not only to the internet, but how you're supposed to get into it. PS Now was not well marketed, didn't have a mass availability and the PS3 rental titles were expensive like 3-5 dollars for a few hours. Stadia which had a great quality was marred down by poor marketing and Google known's poor effort and almost zero spending policy when they had deep pockets for that. Microsoft managed to snag because it is a technically freebie for Game Pass Ultimate with a library that got bigger with the time, all it took was someone with the pockets to do... an effort.
It doesn't make it worse either, small startups don't have a chance in hell now, they don't have chance if this goes through or not. They can't afford to pay what the big boys can for 3rd party content. Just wait for amazon to setup luna through twitch so you just click a play this game now button on a stream and it launches you into luna all covered by your amazon prime sub.
Astray
Gold Member
This decision also gives back the power to other big companies to start competing in the gaming service space when the current Console business model is unattractive to them. If you are Meta or Amazon, and you see the console market not being a thing you can feasibly compete in, the cloud market is a 2nd chance for you to come in.
The likes of Boosteroid would not even be a thing if Cloud Gaming was as much of a red ocean as console gaming is (console gaming ocean is so fucking red, even companies like Microsoft thought about cutting their losses)
Devs can make more money by licensing to a larger host of cloud gaming providers instead of only 1 or 2. Customers get far greater choice of providers with almost minimal switching costs (sub to Sony's service when the new GOW comes out, then cut and move to Xbox's when their stuff comes out etc).
In the event that cloud gaming becomes a thing (YMMV here), the CMA decision becomes a major positive for all companies and all gamers, it's a huge shame that a lot of us don't see that yet.
Back to defining markets for the cat judge. Not sure why but ehh.
Cause the judge asked for it is the answer. He think it is fuzzy line but it's not really likely to have an impact.
Cause the judge asked for it is the answer. He think it is fuzzy line but it's not really likely to have an impact.
Not really.
Last edited:
Bernoulli
M2 slut
judge doesn't see the difference between cloud and native gaming
MasterCornholio
Member
Basically they want to do it ASAP and if it doesn't happen before the end of July the deal is in danger.
Why is this guy who said he only has been on it for 2 days taking the lead? He seems to be doing a shit job.
edit: didn't the experts here say no evidence could be added during the appeal? I've been listening while doing some other things so may have missed something, whats this about evidence?
edit: didn't the experts here say no evidence could be added during the appeal? I've been listening while doing some other things so may have missed something, whats this about evidence?
Last edited:
IFireflyl
Gold Member
Not quite. The judge simply acknowledged that there isn't a firm definition that separates the two.
Also, this CMA lawyer is an idiot. The counter to Mr. Beard should have been, "The CMA can give a shorter timeframe for Microsoft to respond to the CMA because Microsoft is only dealing with the CMA. The CMA cannot adhere to the same timeframe because the CMA is dealing with many different cases, and we need to allocate proper resources to review each case in an appropriate timeframe."
Last edited:
Will see what the judge says.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Last edited:
Bernoulli
M2 slut
they want to use experts as evidence
The Tourmaline Gorilla
Banned
MS almost always has several legal matters at its desk; if not actively, looking at ways to prevent legal issues from occurring. Though there are different teams for various matters.
Yeah, MS clearly wants to introduce expert evidence. The judge still yet to decide and listening to the CMA's position.
Judge is talking about CMA's internal economists responding to the new evidence at the moment in person.
The word innovation re court hearings has been used lol.
Last edited:
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I'm appreciating the play by play from you guys. As someone who doesn't really want to listen myself, the abridged is appreciated.
Will try to but got another video call that I need to be on.
Astray
Gold Member
Thanks for your efforts!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked