Support NeoGAF

[Three]

Mobile is dominated by other players, just doing a simple rough calculation of ABK's mobile revenue divided by mobile gaming revenue.

2bn out of the 50bn = 4% of console
3bn out of the 90bn = 3% of mobile

https://newzoo.com/insights/article...et-is-on-track-to-surpass-200-billion-in-2023

There is the big factor of console software revenue needed to be split out of the 50bn.


Candy Crush is the big one, then COD mobile and now Diablo Immortal but its Candy Crush.

The 50b is a 2021 forcast figure for 2023. I'm not sure what the threshold is for cornering the market but MS, Acti and Zenimax combined would be the highest majority with around 13+%.
Activison at the moment has no less than 5%.

 

[Little Chicken]

 

[reksveks]

You yourself don’t even know if that is true, because you don’t know the margins with Game Pass.

If Sony are hypothetically making £500m per year PROFIT on first party sales, but would only make £100m per year profit releasing everything day one on PS Plus, how is it within their power as a publicly traded company to voluntarily give up £400m a year in profit?

‘If Sony don’t want to give up £400m a year in profit, it’s their fault’ - do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

I wouldnt say its their fault but it's their issue to deal with.

PS I haven't called CMA's crooked and do think they are looking into the important areas of cloud streaming and think they might have a point in those smaller markets especially when it comes to new players. I would probably welcome some concessions that means MS needs to offer COD via a independent licensing deal to cloud streaming providers.

The 50b is a 2021 forcast figure for 2023. I'm not sure what the threshold is for cornering the market but MS, Acti and Zenimax combined would be the highest majority with around 13+%.
Activison at the moment has no less than 5%.

The 50bn is for 2021, but you got me thinking about what that 50bn represents, it should be software. The issue is that there is going to be overlap between the reporting numbers cause platform holders revenue numbers includes their rev split from third party publishers.

How did you get to 13% out of curiosity?

 

[Bernd Lauert]

You yourself don’t even know if that is true, because you don’t know the margins with Game Pass.

If Sony are hypothetically making £500m per year PROFIT on first party sales, but would only make £100m per year profit releasing everything day one on PS Plus, how is it within their power as a publicly traded company to voluntarily give up £400m a year in profit?

‘If Sony don’t want to give up £400m a year in profit, it’s their fault’ - do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

How does this affect the consumer or the market? It doesn't. Btw, Playstation already makes way more money with PS+ than with their first party games. The loss in sales profits would likely be easily made up by an increase in PS+ subscribers. It's a non-issue.

It does though, which is why it is being scrutinised.

The CMAs arguments don't make any sense. Windows OS is freely available to Sony, they're already making many games for it. Microsoft having cloud infrastructure has nothing to do with this deal. The CMA also doesn't describe how exactly the ABK deal would hurt consumers, because they can't. They got clowned for a reason, their statements read as if Sony lawyers wrote them. In light of all this, calling Brazil a shithole country is a bit ironic.

 

[pasterpl]

Microsoft having cloud infrastructure has nothing to do with this deal.

Didn’t Sony signed cloud deal with ms couple years ago?

 

[Banjo64]

How does this affect the consumer or the market? It doesn't. Btw, Playstation already makes way more money with PS+ than with their first party games. The loss in sales profits would likely be easily made up by an increase in PS+ subscribers. It's a non-issue.

Your stance was that Sony can copy Microsoft at any time, therefore there’s no harm to possible competition in the gaming subscription market. It’s not true. The CMA’s stance is that it could potentially harm future competition in the market, which would effect the consumer.

The CMAs arguments don't make any sense. Windows OS is freely available to Sony, they're already making many games for it. Microsoft having cloud infrastructure has nothing to do with this deal. The CMA also doesn't describe how exactly the ABK deal would hurt consumers, because they can't.

I mean it’s pretty straight forward, if Microsoft get too big no one else will be bothered to try and crack the market in 10 or 20 years time. We’ve already seen Google bow out, what more evidence do you need that it’s already hard to compete against the established names as is? A lack of competition ALWAYS harms the consumer.

They got clowned for a reason, their statements read as if Sony lawyers wrote them. In light of all this, calling Brazil a shithole country is a bit ironic.

They’re getting clowned by MS fan boys only, who think that investigating something thoroughly before approving or denying it is a hideous sin.

 

[12Dannu123]

Didn’t Sony signed cloud deal with ms couple years ago?

No, they signed a MOU to explore potential synergies. There's been no progress since then.

 

[DenchDeckard]

You yourself don’t even know if that is true, because you don’t know the margins with Game Pass.

If Sony are hypothetically making £500m per year PROFIT on first party sales, but would only make £100m per year profit releasing everything day one on PS Plus, how is it within their power as a publicly traded company to voluntarily give up £400m a year in profit?

‘If Sony don’t want to give up £400m a year in profit, it’s their fault’ - do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?


It does though, which is why it is being scrutinised.

I completely agree with the subscription comments. If MS aren't showing us numbers, and Sony will have ran them internally. They won't and can not offer a similar service to gamepass if the numbers don't add up for Sony.

On the competitive thing, I think we all know Sony can compete without cod. As a consumer, I want this kind of competitiveness because as cade mentions...Sony have been untouchable for 20 years thanks to brand loyalty and first and third party content that they have nurtured or paid for. This deal will make Sony step up, I believe and we as the consumers and players will ultimately win imo.

If Nintendo can compete, so can Sony.

 

[intheinbetween]

Didn’t Sony signed cloud deal with ms couple years ago?

Yes, to make use of Azure.

The cloud platform won't have much impact on getting this deal approved, also it's a different BU and I'm sure the use of Azure will have a internal cost to the XBOX BU, any gaming platform can negotiate a deal with MS, also there are several public cloud providers besides Microsoft to get a better deal: Amazon, Google, Oracle, Alibaba, IBM, Racspace, among others, there are plenty of options out there.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Your stance was that Sony can copy Microsoft at any time, therefore there’s no harm to possible competition in the gaming subscription market. It’s not true. The CMA’s stance is that it could potentially harm future competition in the market, which would effect the consumer.

How would it harm future competition? CoD isn't even on PS+ until 3 years after release, usually.

I mean it’s pretty straight forward, if Microsoft get too big no one else will be bothered to try and crack the market in 10 or 20 years time. We’ve already seen Google bow out, what more evidence do you need that it’s already hard to compete against the established names as is? A lack of competition ALWAYS harms the consumer.

Google didn't fail because of Microsoft having its own infrastracture, since Google also has its own infrastracture. What does this have to do with the ABK deal?

They’re getting clowned by MS fan boys only, who think that investigating something thoroughly before approving or denying it is a hideous sin.

They can investigate it all they want, but their statements about it are pretty laughable.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

I completely agree with the subscription comments. If MS aren't showing us numbers, and Sony will have ran them internally. They won't and can not offer a similar service to gamepass if the numbers don't add up for Sony.

I disagree, I think Sony just wants to have their cake and it eat too. Now that competition is increasing (and not decreasing, huh), they will maybe feel the need to reassess their strategy, which will also be great for the consumer (and not bad, wow).

 

[Banjo64]

How would it harm future competition? CoD isn't even on PS+ until 3 years after release, usually.

I’ve literally already quoted an pasted how from the CMA’s summary. Having access to Xbox Game Studios, Zenimax and ABK combined with their internal structure and existing brand recognition would put them in a unique position and could prevent future entrants in the space.

Google didn't fail because of Microsoft having its own infrastracture, since Google also has its own infrastracture. What does this have to do with the ABK deal?

Again, I’ve just said. It shows that it’s already difficult for a giant like Google to crack this market. If you allow Microsoft (or Sony/Nintendo for that matter) to acquire the few remaining publishers, it could prevent any possible future entrants in to the space.

They can investigate it all they want, but their statements about it are pretty laughable.

Well that’s your opinion. Personally I think it’s laughable to cheer on countries like Brazil and Saudi Arabia ratifying this as quickly as they can and trying to paint it as though those countries have the most thorough and in depth knowledge about the gaming industry or competition in general, whilst the UK (and presumably EU) are just Sony cocksuckers. Laughable.

 

[phil_t98]

Let me be clear on that, Sony is only worried because if the deal goes through they can say goodbye to CoD exclusive partnership (while MS would be the ones with exclusive content, day 1 release on gamepass, etc..), meaning less revenue, they couldn't care less about the rest of IPs.

I find this really funny because Sony barely moved a finger when MS made public their intentions of acquiring Bethesda, and that's probably because ES, Doom, or any other Bethesda IP doesn't make as much money as CoD. If CoD wasn't part of AB Sony wouldn't be complaining at all, and that says a lot about how they care about consumers, or how they like to say "the players".

The deal will go through, it's just a matter of time.

also if the deal goes through and Microsoft make no changes they make 70% of any sale on a Sony platform. if Sony are making 400-500 million a year off COD alone imagine the numbers Microsoft would make off that

 

[Bernd Lauert]

I’ve literally already quoted an pasted how from the CMA’s summary. Having access to Xbox Game Studios, Zenimax and ABK combined with their internal structure and existing brand recognition would put them in a unique position and could prevent future entrants in the space.

No it wouldn't. Playstation is still bigger than XGS, Zenimax and ABK combined. And has higher brand recognition. The only reason why competing would be harder for them is the higher cost of using a 3rd party server infrastructure. But that has nothing to do with the ABK deal. Other cloud services are competing just fine with much less.

Again, I’ve just said. It shows that it’s already difficult for a giant like Google to crack this market. If you allow Microsoft (or Sony/Nintendo for that matter) to acquire the few remaining publishers, it could prevent any possible future entrants in to the space.

It's difficult for Google because they had a shitty business model. It had nothing to do with Xbox and certainly not with ABK.

Well that’s your opinion. Personally I think it’s laughable to cheer on countries like Brazil and Saudi Arabia ratifying this as quickly as they can and trying to paint it as though those countries have the most thorough and in depth knowledge about the gaming industry or competition in general, whilst the UK (and presumably EU) are just Sony cocksuckers. Laughable.

The FTC also has "concerns", but it never sounded like they're deepthroating Jim Ryan. That's on the CMA.

Btw, if Brazil is so shit, could you argue against some of the points they made? Because so far I haven't seen any good arguments against them.

 

[Three]

I wouldnt say its their fault but it's their issue to deal with.

PS I haven't called CMA's crooked and do think they are looking into the important areas of cloud streaming and think they might have a point in those smaller markets especially when it comes to new players. I would probably welcome some concessions that means MS needs to offer COD via a independent licensing deal to cloud streaming providers.

The 50bn is for 2021, but you got me thinking about what that 50bn represents, it should be software. The issue is that there is going to be overlap between the reporting numbers cause platform holders revenue numbers includes their rev split from third party publishers.

How did you get to 13% out of curiosity?

So it was a May 2021 forcast for CY 2021? The 13+% is from my own internal data of a lower limit. Others put Activision alone at 15% but I think that's a little high and doesn't include independent studios. I'm more curious where your 2bn out of 50bn comes from. Activision's revenue for CY 2021 was 8bn with no less than 4bn from non mobile sales.

 

[reksveks]

So it was a May 2021 forcast for CY 2021? The 13+% is from my own internal data of a lower limit. Others put Activision alone at 15% but I think that's a little high and doesn't include independent studios. I'm more curious where your 2bn out of 50bn comes from.
Activision's revenue for CY 2021 was 8bn with no less than 4bn from non mobile sales.

CY21 Console: 2.6bn
Last 4Q Console: 2bn

That 13%; how does that split out and whats the total console revenue?

December 2021 report for 2021, roughly in-line with their forecast
https://newzoo.com/insights/article...2021-the-year-in-numbers-esports-cloud-gaming

 

[Banjo64]

No it wouldn't. Playstation is still bigger than XGS, Zenimax and ABK combined. And has higher brand recognition. The only reason why competing would be harder for them is the higher cost of using a 3rd party server infrastructure. But that has nothing to do with the ABK deal. Other cloud services are competing just fine with much less.

Yes it does because that’s what the CMA is considering. Just because you wish it not to be true, doesn’t make it fact.

It's difficult for Google because they had a shitty business model. It had nothing to do with Xbox and certainly not with ABK.

Why was their business model shit?

The FTC also has "concerns", but it never sounded like they're deepthroating Jim Ryan. That's on the CMA.

That’s just you looking at it through your warped perspective sadly.

Btw, if Brazil is so shit, could you argue against some of the points they made? Because so far I haven't seen any good arguments against them.

Bernd can you at least try and read my posts before responding to me? In my first post (I think) I highlighted how they are only looking at it through a single, one-dimensional lens.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Yes it does because that’s what the CMA is considering. Just because you wish it not to be true, doesn’t make it fact.

But it objectively doesn't, it's one of the reasons why people are laughing at the CMA.

Why was their business model shit?

They should've copied Nvidia while building up a first party library (even via acquisitions if necessary). They did the exact opposite.

That’s just you looking at it through your warped perspective sadly.

If it were just me, I'd agree.

Bernd can you at least try and read my posts before responding to me? In my first post (I think) I highlighted how they are only looking at it through a single, one-dimensional lens.

They're looking at it through the lense of the merger's impact on the market and the consumer. CMA seems to be looking at it through the lens of how can they best protect the market leader.

 

[PaintTinJr]

To me it just reads like the Brazil regulators would have dovetailed with the EU/UK or US regulator takes on this issue if their processes were further along with other arguments to make. Brazil - like other regions with less impact - probably needed to publicly flex about the deal anyway because of the deal size but were never going to be the front runner to oppose the acquisition, and have wrapped up the process quickly - saving themselves money - with a layman's take on the deal knowing there is confirmed real scrutiny from the EU/UK coming that carries more weight than they could bring, anyway.

The share price has dropped in the last month by 3.5% - if I'm not mistaken and 1% of that in the last 24hrs - which seems weird if the market actual believed this deal will be more likely to succeed following the Brazil approval.

 

[reksveks]

The share price has dropped in the last month by 3.5% - if I'm not mistaken and 1% of that in the last 24hrs - which seems weird if the market actual believed this deal will be more likely to succeed following the Brazil approval.

Think the decision came in this morning or after the markets closed. Ultimately think the markets don't massively care unless its the main three.

 

[Banjo64]

But it objectively doesn't, it's one of the reasons why people are laughing at the CMA.

If it were just me, I'd agree.

Again, it’s just people like SenjutsuSage who are agreeing with you. No one else is laughing.

They're looking at it through the lense of the merger's impact on the market and the consumer. CMA seems to be looking at it through the lens of how can they best protect the market leader.

Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I disagree, I think Sony just wants to have their cake and it eat too. Now that competition is increasing (and not decreasing, huh), they will maybe feel the need to reassess their strategy, which will also be great for the consumer (and not bad, wow).

Maybe the numbers change depending on how they see current gen adoption. I don't know many people who are buying Sony games day one thanks to the pricing and I haven't been.

Obviously people are, even on thos forum but I would love Sony to share actual numbers for titles. I feel its stopped in recent years, which is quite telling.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

When are actual news on this expected?

 

[reksveks]

Maybe the numbers change depending on how they see current gen adoption. I don't know many people who are buying Sony games day one thanks to the pricing and I haven't been.

Obviously people are, even on thos forum but I would love Sony to share actual numbers for titles. I feel its stopped in recent years, which is quite telling.

Just good to wait the four weeks to see what the Q3 numbers look like. All platforms holders are going to have soft software numbers imo.

When are actual news on this expected?

I think you will need to wait for Jan personally for anything meaningful

 

[Three]

CY21 Console: 2.6bn
Last 4Q Console: 2bn

That 13%; how does that split out and whats the total console revenue?

If you used the correct 2.6b for 2021 CY.
2.6/50bn = 5.2% which isn't far off my estimate of no less than 5%.

I'm not sure I'm at liberty to say but i can say MS is estimated at 7%.

Others put MS at 10% and Activison at a little over but it depends what they are counting.

 

[The_Mike]

If Sony is not able to achieve some kind of condition regarding CoD (after crying out loud)...i wonder if MS is going to be like..."Now I am changing my inadequate offer, and you will be happy and accept it".

CoD will be exclusive down the line.

But it will be in like 3 years or so from now.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Maybe the numbers change depending on how they see current gen adoption. I don't know many people who are buying Sony games day one thanks to the pricing and I haven't been.

Obviously people are, even on thos forum but I would love Sony to share actual numbers for titles. I feel its stopped in recent years, which is quite telling.

Completely agree with you about the transparency of numbers by all and find it completely ridiculous that MSFT have obfuscated all means of tracking their "competing" platform(xbox) to verify if it has ever been viable (profitable) or if it is again their MO of "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" against any and all - PlayStation at this point in time.

As a minimum the US, EU and UK regulators should require MSFT to provide all necessary accounts to prove that Xbox over the last 21years hasn't been haemorrhaging billions of dollars.

If it has, then every claim in their reports to regulators of them not negatively impacting the market competition is a lie, because to make that claim you have to be actual viable competition, which I suspect they aren't, but is only unclear, because they've wanted it that way, which should have alarm bells ringing for regulators anyway IMO.

 

[T0kenAussie]

Why was their business model shit?

The model of pay full price while also subscribing to access the full capabilities of the services was clearly flawed from the start

Devs said this, media said this, consumers said this

The only people dumb enough to think it would work was google

That’s before going into the infrastructure mistakes they made which hamstrung the ease of ports and support to the service which instantly degraded its quality vs other platforms

 

[reksveks]

If you used the correct 2.6b for 2021 CY.
2.6/50bn = 5.2% which isn't far off my estimate of no less than 5%.

I'm not sure I'm at liberty to say but i can say MS is estimated at 7%.

Microsoft total content and services is 12.5bn for CY21;

Using the 5.2; (2.6*7/5.2) = 3.5bn for first party rev (content + subscription)?

But yeah, it gets rather weird regarding what you are actually counting.

 

[T0kenAussie]

Completely agree with you about the transparency of numbers by all and find it completely ridiculous that MSFT have obfuscated all means of tracking their "competing" platform(xbox) to verify if it has ever been viable (profitable) or if it is again their MO of "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" against any and all - PlayStation at this point in time.

As a minimum the US, EU and UK regulators should require MSFT to provide all necessary accounts to prove that Xbox over the last 21years hasn't been haemorrhaging billions of dollars.

If it has, then every claim in their reports to regulators of them not negatively impacting the market competition is a lie, because to make that claim you have to be actual viable competition, which I suspect they aren't, but is only unclear, because they've wanted it that way, which should have alarm bells ringing for regulators anyway IMO.

Tell me you don’t understand investing in new markets to grow your business without telling me

Embrace expand extinguish died in the 90s after they beat the gov case btw

If Steve jobs can put his pride aside to take a Microsoft investment in apple then you can stop with 90s cliches surely

 

[Godot25]

Your stance was that Sony can copy Microsoft at any time, therefore there’s no harm to possible competition in the gaming subscription market. It’s not true. The CMA’s stance is that it could potentially harm future competition in the market, which would effect the consumer.

Yes they can. They even had subscription service with catalogue of games available and streaming service sooner than Microsoft. It's Sony's fault that they literally ignored PS Now until Microsoft pulled rug from them. They had infrastructure, they had actual functioning product and they refused to be aggressive to grow this side of business because 60$ (70$ now) for first-party game is more appealing for them so they choosed that path.

But CMA can't use this against Microsoft. You can't say "well, Sony fell asleep under wheel, so we are blocking this deal." It's not Microsoft's job to take care about Sony. It's why people laughed away CMA's concerns. Because Sony had a chance and blew it spectacularly in terms of streaming services and subscriptions.

PS Now exists since 2014. Game Pass came out in 2017. Do you know when Sony allowed local downloads of games from PS Now? After Game Pass. Do you know when Sony stared to add first-party games into subscription permanently? This year. The could have done both of those things before Game Pass. They choose not to. It's their fault. Nobody prevented them from doing it.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

The model of pay full price while also subscribing to access the full capabilities of the services was clearly flawed from the start

Devs said this, media said this, consumers said this

The only people dumb enough to think it would work was google

That’s before going into the infrastructure mistakes they made which hamstrung the ease of ports and support to the service which instantly degraded its quality vs other platforms

Yep, so many mistakes. None of them have anything to do with Microsoft or ABK.

 

[reksveks]

CLOUD GAMING

With regard to cloud gaming services , such as Google Stadia , Amazon Luna and GeForce Now , this SG/Cade considers that, in the current scenario, the possible difficulties faced by such services in competition with Game Pass are more related to the (still) low popularity of the game streaming model than to the game content exclusive to Microsoft's service.

Indeed, although many point to the streaming of games via the Internet as the likely future trend of the video game industry, the fact is that consumer adherence to cloud gaming services is still relatively low. Furthermore, expert projections do not seem to indicate that streaming games across multiple devices will be able to supplant the current " device-centric" model prevalent in the industry, based on the use of dedicated gaming hardware , in the near future. According to estimates by Omdia, a market research firm specializing in technology, the share of cloud gamingservices in consumer spending on games is expected to increase from 2.1% in 2021 to 6.1% in 2026 – a growth that, despite being quite expressive, still seems insufficient to break the current paradigm of the sector.

The technological challenges to the growth of cloud gaming on a global scale and the still low adherence of consumers to the model are possibly factors that motivated Google to close its exclusive game development studios for Stadia in 2021, and they can also have influenced the decision of Microsoft and Sony to stop offering their Xbox Cloud Gaming and PlayStation Nowcloud gaming services independently to consumers – these services currently integrate the more complete Game Pass and PlayStation Plus subscription modalities , not being marketed separately.

In any case, considering a possible future scenario in which technological difficulties are overcome and the game streaming model becomes popular worldwide, this SG/Cade does not envisage that the acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft is an impediment to the development of competitors and the entry of new companies in the segment.

It should also be pondered that, among the companies that offer cloud gaming services, there are extremely sophisticated players such as Google (responsible for Stadia ) and Amazon (responsible for Luna ), both global leaders in their respective core businesses and well positioned among the largest companies in the world. The two companies also have easy access to data and statistics on preferences and consumption patterns of millions of players who use their services and platforms, a factor that can contribute to the development of better targeted and assertive products and services. SG/Cade believes that, as the cloud gaming modelbecome more widespread among gamers - and therefore also more profitable for service providers -, such companies will have full financial and technological conditions to produce (or buy) exclusive content and enter the video game market more competitively. . In fact, if there is interest and incentives, companies like Google and Amazon have more than enough resources to invest in hiring talent, creating their own development studios, in partnerships with successful publishers , or even in the incorporation of large game studios or publishers.

It is recognized that, regardless of the size of the company, entering new markets is usually permeated by many obstacles, especially in the case of markets concentrated in a few well-established players . Nevertheless, the challenges imposed on the entry of new providers of subscription services for games and cloud gaming do not seem, in essence, very different from those faced by Microsoft when it launched the first Xbox in 2001, in a console market dominated by Sony and Nintendo; or those faced by Sony at the launch of the first PlayStation in 1994, when the company entered a market divided between Nintendo and SEGA and, shortly afterwards, became the leader in the segment.

For all the reasons set out above, this SG/Cade understands that the execution of the Transaction in question, by itself, would not have the power to cause the closing of access to the game distribution market for subscription service providers competing with Microsoft.

Via ibf via Ida on resetera

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Brazil arguments regarding cloud:

CLOUD GAMING

With regard to cloud gaming services , such as Google Stadia , Amazon Luna and GeForce Now , this SG/Cade considers that, in the current scenario, the possible difficulties faced by such services in competition with Game Pass are more related to the (still) low popularity of the game streaming model than to the game content exclusive to Microsoft's service.

Indeed, although many point to the streaming of games via the Internet as the likely future trend of the video game industry, the fact is that consumer adherence to cloud gaming services is still relatively low. Furthermore, expert projections do not seem to indicate that streaming games across multiple devices will be able to supplant the current " device-centric" model prevalent in the industry, based on the use of dedicated gaming hardware , in the near future. According to estimates by Omdia, a market research firm specializing in technology, the share of cloud gamingservices in consumer spending on games is expected to increase from 2.1% in 2021 to 6.1% in 2026 – a growth that, despite being quite expressive, still seems insufficient to break the current paradigm of the sector.

The technological challenges to the growth of cloud gaming on a global scale and the still low adherence of consumers to the model are possibly factors that motivated Google to close its exclusive game development studios for Stadia in 2021, and they can also have influenced the decision of Microsoft and Sony to stop offering their Xbox Cloud Gaming and PlayStation Nowcloud gaming services independently to consumers – these services currently integrate the more complete Game Pass and PlayStation Plus subscription modalities , not being marketed separately.

In any case, considering a possible future scenario in which technological difficulties are overcome and the game streaming model becomes popular worldwide, this SG/Cade does not envisage that the acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft is an impediment to the development of competitors and the entry of new companies in the segment.

It should also be pondered that, among the companies that offer cloud gaming services, there are extremely sophisticated players such as Google (responsible for Stadia ) and Amazon (responsible for Luna ), both global leaders in their respective core businesses and well positioned among the largest companies in the world. The two companies also have easy access to data and statistics on preferences and consumption patterns of millions of players who use their services and platforms, a factor that can contribute to the development of better targeted and assertive products and services. SG/Cade believes that, as the cloud gaming modelbecome more widespread among gamers - and therefore also more profitable for service providers -, such companies will have full financial and technological conditions to produce (or buy) exclusive content and enter the video game market more competitively. . In fact, if there is interest and incentives, companies like Google and Amazon have more than enough resources to invest in hiring talent, creating their own development studios, in partnerships with successful publishers , or even in the incorporation of large game studios or publishers.

It is recognized that, regardless of the size of the company, entering new markets is usually permeated by many obstacles, especially in the case of markets concentrated in a few well-established players . Nevertheless, the challenges imposed on the entry of new providers of subscription services for games and cloud gaming do not seem, in essence, very different from those faced by Microsoft when it launched the first Xbox in 2001, in a console market dominated by Sony and Nintendo; or those faced by Sony at the launch of the first PlayStation in 1994, when the company entered a market divided between Nintendo and SEGA and, shortly afterwards, became the leader in the segment.

For all the reasons set out above, this SG/Cade understands that the execution of the Transaction in question, by itself, would not have the power to cause the closing of access to the game distribution market for subscription service providers competing with Microsoft.

TL;DR: cloud is small and that's why companies are struggling with it. Even if it becomes big, ABK has nothing to do with whether a company is competitive or not with cloud.

 

[intheinbetween]

Yes they can. They even had subscription service with catalogue of games available and streaming service sooner than Microsoft. It's Sony's fault that they literally ignored PS Now until Microsoft pulled rug from them. They had infrastructure, they had actual functioning product and they refused to be aggressive to grow this side of business because 60$ (70$ now) for first-party game is more appealing for them so they choosed that path.

But CMA can't use this against Microsoft. You can't say "well, Sony fell asleep under wheel, so we are blocking this deal." It's not Microsoft's job to take care about Sony. It's why people laughed away CMA's concerns. Because Sony had a chance and blew it spectacularly in terms of streaming services and subscriptions.

PS Now exists since 2014. Game Pass came out in 2017. Do you know when Sony allowed local downloads of games from PS Now? After Game Pass. Do you know when Sony stared to add first-party games into subscription permanently? This year. The could have done both of those things before Game Pass. They choose not to. It's their fault. Nobody prevented them from doing it.

Also, Sony acquired Gaikai 10 years ago, in 2012, and they barely invested in the cloud gaming despite acquiring one of the pioneer companies back then, so if it hasn't evolved properly over 10 years it's not because of any other than Sony themselves

 

[skit_data]

Brazil arguments regarding cloud:


TL;DR: cloud is small and that's why companies are struggling with it. Even if it becomes big, ABK has nothing to do with whether a company is competitive or not with cloud.

I think the main differentiator between the Brazilian and rest of the regulators is that Brazil is looking at the cloud/streaming market as it stands now whereas US/EU etc. regulators job is to try to evaluate the further implications of the deal if streaming/cloud takes off in the way that MS themselves are betting on it will. Different ways to analyze the same subject.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

I think the main differentiator between the Brazilian and rest of the regulators is that Brazil is looking at the cloud/streaming market as it stands now whereas US/EU etc. regulators job is to try to evaluate the further implications of the deal if streaming/cloud takes off in the way that MS themselves are betting on it will. Different ways to analyze the same subject.

According to their explanation, they're taking both present and potential future market implications into account. They just argue that MS buying ABK won't affect the future market at all.

 

[Schmick]

I think the main differentiator between the Brazilian and rest of the regulators is that Brazil is looking at the cloud/streaming market as it stands now whereas US/EU etc. regulators job is to try to evaluate the further implications of the deal if streaming/cloud takes off in the way that MS themselves are betting on it will. Different ways to analyze the same subject.

The Brazilian regulators do talk about future potential uptake and concludes that cloud will still be small. Even the jump from 2% to 6% marketshare, which is predicted before 2027 the significance of this increase is minor. It just won't affect the way people play their games. I.e. playing with local hardware.

 

[C2brixx]

Brazil's conclusion on Cloud gaming stood out to me...

"they can also have influenced the decision of Microsoft and Sony to stop offering their Xbox Cloud Gaming and PlayStation Nowcloud gaming services independently to consumers – these services currently integrate the more complete Game Pass and PlayStation Plus subscription modalities , not being marketed separately."

Cloud gaming can not stand on it's own as a subscription service. It works well as an option. Luna needs to piggyback Amazon Prime and Netflix gaming service needs, well Netflix.

 

[solidus12]

An eventual EA acquisition by MS might be greenlit by Brazilian regulators then.

 

[skit_data]

According to their explanation, they're taking both present and potential future market implications into account. They just argue that MS buying ABK won't affect the future market at all.

The Brazilian regulators do talk about future potential uptake and concludes that cloud will still be small. Even the jump from 2% to 6% marketshare, which is predicted before 2027 the significance of this increase is minor. It just won't affect the way people play their games. I.e. playing with local hardware.

They may be right, they may be wrong. If they’re right that must mean that MS is somewhat over estimating the potential of the deal which is ironic. Either the Brazilian regulators are wrong or MS are, that’s my interpretation.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

They may be right, they may be wrong. If they’re right that must mean that MS is somewhat over estimating the potential of the deal which is ironic. Either the Brazilian regulators are wrong or MS are, that’s my interpretation.

Do you think MS bought ABK because of the cloud potential? I really doubt it. Main drivers were mobile and Gamepass. Of course the latter helps cloud a lot, but it's not the main thing at all.

 

[Schmick]

They may be right, they may be wrong. If they’re right that must mean that MS is somewhat over estimating the potential of the deal which is ironic. Either the Brazilian regulators are wrong or MS are, that’s my interpretation.

Cloud gaming is just a small part of the bigger picture. The deal brings popular IPs to Gamepass without any obstacles. But the bigger part will be mobile. King is huge.

 

[skit_data]

Do you think MS bought ABK because of the cloud potential? I really doubt it. Main drivers were mobile and Gamepass. Of course the latter helps cloud a lot, but it's not the main thing at all.

Not first and formost, but they’re definitely betting on cloud becoming bigger and that of course can be considered when they’re buying one of the biggest publishers because it will have a drastic effect on their position within an emerging cloud gaming market.

The long rumored streaming stick, Xcloud on Samsung TVs, Xcloud on mobile phones etc.

 

[skit_data]

Cloud gaming is just a small part of the bigger picture. The deal brings popular IPs to Gamepass without any obstacles. But the bigger part will be mobile. King is huge.

I’m not saying it is a big part of the picture now, MS says it will be in the future. Some of the regulators takes that into account whereas Brazil seemingly doesn’t. That’s all.

 

[Gone]

US will side with MS, EU Shown no concern so i expect these two give same answer as Brazil what left really here is UK CMA.

And the UK CMA's response so far sounds exactly like they're a bunch of lawyers for Sony.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Tell me you don’t understand investing in new markets to grow your business without telling me

That is a ridiculous take to claim investing in a new market for 21years (and counting) is acceptable business practices. 5year projects or less is typical - for RoI- 10years if the things changing would justify it, say like Moore's laws impact on things, but the idea of it taking 21years to try and "compete" with a regular strategy in a well-defined marketplace (the games industry) with a viable (profitable) platform is just you, defending the indefensible strategy of a mega corporation with previous.

Embrace expand extinguish died in the 90s after they beat the gov case btw

Saved by the bell - with a change of government - and a new policy of unamerican to sue successful American companies IIRC.

If Steve jobs can put his pride aside to take a Microsoft investment in apple then you can stop with 90s cliches surely

A method of operation only dies when people stop using the method. The investment stage for Xbox was up in 2006-2011, if it wasn't profitable by then, they aren't competition in the market for Nintendo or PlayStation, and are following that old methodology IMHO.

Nothing cliched about calling things out for what they are, is there?

 

[Negotiator101]

That is a ridiculous take to claim investing in a new market for 21years (and counting) is acceptable business practices. 5year projects or less is typical - for RoI- 10years if the things changing would justify it, say like Moore's laws impact on things, but the idea of it taking 21years to try and "compete" with a regular strategy in a well-defined marketplace (the games industry) with a viable (profitable) platform is just you, defending the indefensible strategy of a mega corporation with previous.


Saved by the bell - with a change of government - and a new policy of unamerican to sue successful American companies IIRC.

A method of operation only dies when people stop using the method. The investment stage for Xbox was up in 2006-2011, if it wasn't profitable by then, they aren't competition in the market for Nintendo or PlayStation, and are following that old methodology IMHO.

Nothing cliched about calling things out for what they are, is there?

What are you trying to get across?

 

[Three]

"SG/Cade believes that, as the cloud gaming model become more widespread among gamers - and therefore also more profitable for service providers -, such companies will have full financial and technological conditions to produce (or buy) exclusive content and enter the video game market more competitively....
In fact, if there is interest and incentives, companies like Google and Amazon have more than enough resources to invest in hiring talent, creating their own development studios, in partnerships with successful publishers , or even in the incorporation of large game studios or publishers."

I'm guessing CADE wrote this before Stadia decided to shutter.
Isn't that the issue? The reason why MS are even buying ABK is because creating their own development studio or partnering with publishers for that all important "exclusive content" is difficult for those behind or entering the market? Also partnering with publishers becomes even more difficult if somebody is out there buying up all the partners you try to partner with for popular content.

 

[R3claimer117]

How dare the CMA consider future competition (or lack thereof) in the cloud streaming and subscription market. Those fucking clueless corrupt bastards, clearly in Sony’s pocket.

Like the world famous beacon of non-corruption, Brazil, they should just be looking at this through a single one dimensional lens.

Lol they at least sound like the understand the gaming industry. All their findings for approval point to that. The cma stuff about protecting the market leader is counter intuitive to what they’re supposed to be doing they’ve been the biggest outlier so far. Don’t act like there’s no political corruption in every government if it exist in the United States government it exist everywhere.