Kadve
Member
Isnt there a limit though on how many times you can appeal?
-
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 prevented to protect innovation and choice in cloud gaming
- Thread starter bitbydeath
- Start date
- News
StealthGoblin
Banned
The CMA appeal process can only be done on grounds of due diligence, not on the substance or remedies. The CMA gave adequate time for the remedies and Microsoft put forward some, and they were deemed insufficient.
Microsoft and Activision MUST prove that the CMA made their decision without doing due diligence. There is no court.
The CMA are also in the process of being given more power in law.
Last edited:
SLESS
Member
The CMA were thinking holistically, MS were pretending it’s just about COD. Gotta love the Poms.
TheDreadLord
Gold Member
It will be interesting to see the EC decision. I’d say they will also block it because “erp derp big tech we hate you mimimi”. However, if everyone but CMA is in favor it will be pretty evident the political/ideological side of CMAs decision.
Astray
Gold Member
So anything you don't like is "political/ideological"?
TheDreadLord
Gold Member
Why you think I care about the decision? I’m not a share holder or anything. Now you, it seems you care quite a bit to come here and quote my post. Please, using all your wisdom, explain why everyone but CMA is wrong in a hypothetical scenario where all other agencies approve the deal.
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
I think if that deal don't go through, Microsoft might pull out their titles from PlayStation like Minecraft and Bethesda titles.
reinking
Gold Member
Because the CMA came to their own conclusion on the impact of their market? You, in your wisdom, explain why another body voting one way or the other suddenly makes the CMA decision right or wrong. The CMA decision is independent of any other regulatory agency.
TheDreadLord
Gold Member
UK must really be a special market then
if CMA said then the world must bow at their will. Well, I’m still awaiting for a reasonable explanation why they would be the only ones correct in this hypothetical scenario."Everyone" except that other important regulatory body known as the FTC.
Bojanglez
The Amiga Brotherhood
The world doesn't have to bow at their will, it is MS & ABK that chose to incorporate the CMA into their contract. It is MS & ABK that ignored the request for structural remedies. Each country is within their rights to regulate industries how they see fit, and companies can adjust accordingly. Do you think it should be the other way around and whatever MS says the world must bow at their will?UK must really be a special market then
CuNi
Member
UK must really be a special market then
The rest doesn't have to bow to the decision of the UK. The CMA only blocks the deal in the UK. If MS thinks they don't need the UK, they can go right ahead and go through with the merger.
One could spin your argument around and say why should the UK budge to the rest of the world when it comes to internal affairs?
It doesn't matter either way. The contract for the merger said Ms needs the approval of the CMA too, so on those grounds alone this deal is most likely dead.
I say likely because I have no knowledge about laws and what options, if any, MS still has.
Astray
Gold Member
Very odd how you come across as extremely mad about the CMA kneecapping a company you aren't a shareholder of.
demigod
Member
The USA must really be a special market as well since the FTC is blocking itUK must really be a special market then
. We will await for a reasonable explanation on how you missed that.
Tomeru
Member
Gentlemen! Our nation is in grave danger. The forces of evil are gaining. Their advances in cyber warfare was not anticipated. Not to this degree. We must protect our people. And we must protect the queen.
We must approve of ms and atv deal.
It is the only way. MS will save us.
reinking
Gold Member
Because they are not the only agency with concerns right now. The FTC has already sued to block it. That already disproves the theory that only the CMA has concerns. You have already been provided a reasonable explanation. The CMA is independent of other agencies. Their decision is independent of other agencies decision. You seem to have already made up your mind so no reasonable explanation is going to be sufficient.UK must really be a special market then
Shut0wen
Member
Ok well ill write back to you when MS appeals it, CMA and other regulators can always be appealed i dont understand why you think there final word is gospel when it isnt
Shut0wen
Member
https://www.catribunal.org.uk/
this literally states that anyone can appeal a CMA decision, if MS wins the tribunal then the CMA has to do another review, like i said anything can be appealed, regulators are no different
Topher
Gold Member
S StealthGoblin isn't saying it cannot be appealed. He is saying that the decision isn't what is being appealed rather that MS can point to specific points that they feel are "irrational" or legal errors that the CMA committed. You are correct, however, that CMA will have to revisit the case if that happens. They can then fix the errors and then come back with the exact same decision. That is exactly what happened in the JD Sports case and they were forced to sell off the company they had acquired.
Sony
Nintendo
CMA blocked this deal over unfounded fear and speculation of future market. You can be for or against this merger, but you can't deny that CMA used dubious methods to reach their conclusion. CMA is basically an untouchable FTC. At least FTC's decision can be appealed in court and they gave to provide proof for their findings.
The same fallacies in CMA's findings with regard to the console market - which made them backtrack on their console concerns - are present in their cloud findings.
CMA's data showed that only 2% of gamers would switch from PS to Xbox if CoD would go Xbox exclusive, yet CMA chose to mark it essential input.
CMA's data shows that not every Game Pass Ultimate subscriber is subsribed for cloud gaming/uses it, yet they treat every GPU member as part of the cloud market share, inflating MS's market.
CMA is a moralistic joke and the worst thing is that no one can do anything about it.
The same fallacies in CMA's findings with regard to the console market - which made them backtrack on their console concerns - are present in their cloud findings.
CMA's data showed that only 2% of gamers would switch from PS to Xbox if CoD would go Xbox exclusive, yet CMA chose to mark it essential input.
CMA's data shows that not every Game Pass Ultimate subscriber is subsribed for cloud gaming/uses it, yet they treat every GPU member as part of the cloud market share, inflating MS's market.
CMA is a moralistic joke and the worst thing is that no one can do anything about it.
Last edited:
Topher
Gold Member
CMA’s decision is not based on current market share. CMA acknowledges the disagreement on that calculation in their finding and say flatly that it is inconsequential.
StealthGoblin
Banned
Correct. They have to prove legally that the CMA made legal errors. They cannot challenge the substance as that was that the preliminary findings and remedies were for. The CMA were unsatisfied.
Microsoft and ABK have to prove that the CMA acted illegally or did not conduct due diligence.
Last edited:
Sony
Nintendo
It's not inconsequential, because that way they admit that marketshare is administrative and not factual. Concider this example:
- If Microsoft had 10.000 GPU members in the UK, of which only 1000 use cloud gaming/ are subsribed because of cloud and
- PS+ Premium has 2000 members,
Then Microsoft's market share on paper according to CMA would be 10.000 VS's Sony's 2000, while in realise only 1000 of those GPU members are subscribed for cloud.
And also, market share being administrative also directly undermines CMA's concern.
CMA doesn't allow Microsoft to merge with ABK because they think they'll get an insurmountable lead in the cloud market.
But if Sony decides to include cloud streaming to PS+ Essential, then all of a sudden Sony are market leader in cloud gaming even after Microsoft merged with ABK.
That directly contradicts CMA's concern. It's a nonsensical argument to make on CMA's part.
Last edited:
Thirty7ven
Banned
TrebleShot
Member
Once again in here to remind you all that CMA decisions are 99% final and any appeal will once again run through the CMA once a decision has been made on the appeal of high will likely uncover the same truth.
The ruling can’t be proven wrong as there is no counter evidence to say MS doesn’t already own a huge percentage of the cloud market and a deal like this would cement that further in the gaming space.
It’s over , done.
Additionally the CMA would likely block any bigger or equal deals for the likes of EA and UBi on the same grounds.
Interestingly Sony if they were to make a similar move most likely wouldn’t be blocked on the same grounds since their streaming service is based on Azure and they would not be a monopoly on the service, having said that. I don’t think they will go for it.
The ruling can’t be proven wrong as there is no counter evidence to say MS doesn’t already own a huge percentage of the cloud market and a deal like this would cement that further in the gaming space.
It’s over , done.
Additionally the CMA would likely block any bigger or equal deals for the likes of EA and UBi on the same grounds.
Interestingly Sony if they were to make a similar move most likely wouldn’t be blocked on the same grounds since their streaming service is based on Azure and they would not be a monopoly on the service, having said that. I don’t think they will go for it.
Topher
Gold Member
Not really. CMA's concerns are with Microsoft's "future position". They can dance around the ways to calculate market share now all they want, but a Microsoft-Azure-ABK entity would be an incredibly hard cloud company to compete with in gaming. That's the concern of the CMA and I don't see anything nonsensical about that. But obviously we disagree.
Last edited:
Sony
Nintendo
The nonsensical thing is how CMA extrapolates market share. CMA considers a GamePass subscriber as a cloud user while their data suggests not ever GamePass is a cloud gamer or ever tried it. The problem with their reasoning is that in this way, you can make any claim without the burden of proof.
And about the Microsoft-Azure-ABK part..., xCloud doesn't use Azure but custom console motherboards. Another fallacy in CMA's reasoning.
GHG
Member
Try telling that to Microsoft then:
Project xCloud is powered by Microsoft Azure. Leveraging Azure’s 54 global regions – more than any other cloud provider – Project xCloud brings you closer to your gamers.
https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/games/products/project-xcloud/
Unless you're going to tell us Microsoft are lying?
FrankWza
Member
But microsoft made the claim that they would reach more gamers through cloud. How is CMA extrapolating when Microsoft set the goal and used it as a positive?
Bernardougf
Gold Member
Topher
Gold Member
Like I said, we can dance around the market share aspect back and forth and it doesn't matter as that is not the basis for the decision. And as
GHG
pointed out, that nonsense about Azure was MS flat-out lying.
Project xCloud
Put your game in front of more gamers, on more devices using Xbox Game Streaming
developer.microsoft.com
If we are going to talk about nonsensical arguments then start there.
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
Of course it does.
DForce
NaughtyDog Defense Force
Blame Microsoft.
They have said for years that their ultimate goal is to reach billions of gamers and this is going to be done through cloud gaming.
The CMA knows this, Microsoft knows this and so do Xbox fans.
Do you know how many Xbox fans were saying Sony doesn't have the infrastructure to compete with Microsoft with Cloud gaming? Or what about the past 5 years when Xbox fans have been saying "Microsoft doesn't care (or that much) about console sales"? Microsoft tried to release a streaming device.
After all of this, Xbox fans are saying the CMA is acting irrationally and that they're blocking based on a market that's not proven. Blame Microsoft bragging about cloud gaming as the future. It probably doesn't help that they're offering 10-year deals to streaming services if the market wasn't going anywhere.
BattleScar
Member
Whether people like it or not, Microsoft is being cucked because they are a massive tech conglomerate, and everything they do is going to be viewed with suspicion.
They are not your friend, or anyone's friend. They're out to make money as they always have been. Behavioural remedies are meaningless.
The entire reason they want ABK's IP portfolio is so they can foreclose their competition from access to those IP to strengthen the market position of their gaming platform. They talked big about how Sony and Nintendo aren't their "real competitors", those "real competitors" being other massive cloud providers like Apple, Google, and AWS. They talked about an addressable market beyond the 200-odd million console gamers we see to today and referred to a potential market of BILLIONS.
They've partnered with Samsung to bring xCloud to their TVs so it becomes part of the fucking furniture. Microsoft's entire strategic goal with everything they're doing and everything they're investing in, is to circumvent the console landscape which they have conceded is; entirely by their own making, a lost cause. So they're hoping to cannibalise the market initially through an instant-access, game subscription service, which will then follow through to a cloud gaming service. Who cares if your box didn't sell 50 million units, when you have a billion TV's with your subscription service plastered all over its home operating system and accessible through a loss-leading pricing structure that only they have the raw capital to subsidise. Then when you add MS studios, Zenimax and ABK IP portfolios to that system, it becomes an instant win.
Here's the kicker, even if they promise and actually do license their IP out to other subscription services like PlayStation + Premium (hint: they'll give it to everyone BUT PlayStation), they'll collect a nice license fee, which will force the competitor to have reduced margins and they can price them out of the picture using their enormous scale. Why bother subscribing to <Insert competing cloud gaming service> when it costs more because of license fees. Why not just do the easy thing, and subscribe to xCloud and you can have it all much more easily. Plus Microsoft have so much more clout to get their App on Windows, TV's, Phones, Tablets, Fridges and even TI-82's because they can pay X billion dollars to get the deal signed.
They absolutely can perform their behaviour remedies, whilst simultaneously squeezing competitors out of the market.
Its so fucking transparent.
Microsoft loved downplaying their poor performance in gaming to their investors, by saying they're setting their sights beyond the console gaming market, and are building the GaaS Cloud model. But when it comes to regulators, they flipped the script saying poor widdle Microsoft is just a babby player in the gaming market, and that Cloud gaming isn't real yet, and please don't pay attention to everything we've been building and investing in - that doesn't count.
The CMA are regulating Microsoft as per their own publicly iterated aspirations, so they can choke on them now.
Market consolidation is good for nobody. And allowing the market to consolidate so that a multi trillion dollar corporation can better compete, in spite of their abject incompetence in the market, is pure foolishness. You could argue that Xbox as a brand has been crippled by its parent's massive cash reserves and corporate backing. Nothing is at risk, because they've got billions in the bank and a compliant CEO. If they didn't have the financial security they did, maybe their leadership would have been more ruthless and savvy, because its that or heading the route of SEGA.
They are not your friend, or anyone's friend. They're out to make money as they always have been. Behavioural remedies are meaningless.
The entire reason they want ABK's IP portfolio is so they can foreclose their competition from access to those IP to strengthen the market position of their gaming platform. They talked big about how Sony and Nintendo aren't their "real competitors", those "real competitors" being other massive cloud providers like Apple, Google, and AWS. They talked about an addressable market beyond the 200-odd million console gamers we see to today and referred to a potential market of BILLIONS.
They've partnered with Samsung to bring xCloud to their TVs so it becomes part of the fucking furniture. Microsoft's entire strategic goal with everything they're doing and everything they're investing in, is to circumvent the console landscape which they have conceded is; entirely by their own making, a lost cause. So they're hoping to cannibalise the market initially through an instant-access, game subscription service, which will then follow through to a cloud gaming service. Who cares if your box didn't sell 50 million units, when you have a billion TV's with your subscription service plastered all over its home operating system and accessible through a loss-leading pricing structure that only they have the raw capital to subsidise. Then when you add MS studios, Zenimax and ABK IP portfolios to that system, it becomes an instant win.
Here's the kicker, even if they promise and actually do license their IP out to other subscription services like PlayStation + Premium (hint: they'll give it to everyone BUT PlayStation), they'll collect a nice license fee, which will force the competitor to have reduced margins and they can price them out of the picture using their enormous scale. Why bother subscribing to <Insert competing cloud gaming service> when it costs more because of license fees. Why not just do the easy thing, and subscribe to xCloud and you can have it all much more easily. Plus Microsoft have so much more clout to get their App on Windows, TV's, Phones, Tablets, Fridges and even TI-82's because they can pay X billion dollars to get the deal signed.
They absolutely can perform their behaviour remedies, whilst simultaneously squeezing competitors out of the market.
Its so fucking transparent.
Microsoft loved downplaying their poor performance in gaming to their investors, by saying they're setting their sights beyond the console gaming market, and are building the GaaS Cloud model. But when it comes to regulators, they flipped the script saying poor widdle Microsoft is just a babby player in the gaming market, and that Cloud gaming isn't real yet, and please don't pay attention to everything we've been building and investing in - that doesn't count.
The CMA are regulating Microsoft as per their own publicly iterated aspirations, so they can choke on them now.
Market consolidation is good for nobody. And allowing the market to consolidate so that a multi trillion dollar corporation can better compete, in spite of their abject incompetence in the market, is pure foolishness. You could argue that Xbox as a brand has been crippled by its parent's massive cash reserves and corporate backing. Nothing is at risk, because they've got billions in the bank and a compliant CEO. If they didn't have the financial security they did, maybe their leadership would have been more ruthless and savvy, because its that or heading the route of SEGA.
Last edited:
mansoor1980
Gold Member
Dick Jones
Gold Member
I've been paying Mueller to keep the crazy coming until the EC decision. Soz!
Sony
Nintendo
Like I said, we can dance around the market share aspect back and forth and it doesn't matter as that is not the basis for the decision. And as
[/URL]
If we are going to talk about nonsensical arguments then start there.
Per CMA report:
Topher
Gold Member
So which one is the lie? The years of Microsoft saying xCloud was powered by Azure or Microsoft's lawyers trying to push this acquisition through?
Either way, Microsoft is lying.
Last edited:
Sony
Nintendo
Or it's more complex than that and Azure could be the physical servers and the infrastructure. It doesn't have to be black or white.
If Microsoft were lying you'd bet your ass CMA would call them out.
Last edited:
BattleScar
Member
Its distinct hardware perhaps, but the physical infrastructure is more than definitely shared.
bitbydeath
Member
That still means Azure is used for Cloud Gaming.
Topher
Gold Member
Which means it is using Azure.
El Pistolero
Banned
Last edited by a moderator:
GHG
Member
You know, it's a shame that in this instace you've decided to get your talking points from resetera (which is where a google of your quoted text led me, and that was the only result) rather than reading through the report for yourself. The reason I say this is because context is important.
What you quoted is what Microsoft claimed to the CMA as noted by the references:
And again here:
However this was the CMA's assessment of the claims above (points 8.153-4 are key):
And for the sake of completeness, these were the views from third parties regarding Microsoft's current position while taking Azure into consideration:
And this was the CMA's final assessment regarding Azure:
-------
So in summary:
Microsoft said one thing to the CMA regarding Azure and its relationship to cloud gaming (which is what you've decided to go with), however the evidence out there from their marketing, website and own internal documents proves otherwise. There is too much contradictory evidence out there to ignore.
And as a bonus here's one last nugget for you to chew on (page 247 of the final report):
I hope you can spot the recurring theme here - Microsoft's own internal documents. Funny that.
Last edited:
mansoor1980
Gold Member
any chance this deal can be redeemed for microsoft?
phil spencer fighting back for redemption.............................
phil spencer fighting back for redemption.............................
Moridianae
Member
any chance this deal can be redeemed for microsoft?
phil spencer fighting back for redemption.............................
Unlikely. It seems highly unlikely the CMA will reverse their decision.
The EC is now in a precarious situation wherein they don't want to appear weaker, so I wouldn't be surprised if they also reject it this month.
If both the EC and the CMA reject this deal, it's most likely over for their attempt at ABK.
A lot of folks here think the CMAs veto has enough clout to end it regardless. We'll see.
Microsoft isn't in the most comfortable of waters right now, imo. There was a yarn spun that only Sony was against this deal, but the CMAs decision revealed there were far more out there.
You have their first AAA release in Redfall, by Bethesda(who they also bought) and it's stunningly below average. It worries me because Microsoft has folded in many studios, but most of them release subpar work or simply vanished into obscurity after being bought.
They *really* need to work on quality titles, rather than trying to checkbook their way to something good.
Last edited:
demigod
Member
Dude is trolling with the Sony username. Not even sure how he got it. Sad little fella if you ask me.You almost had us with the Nintendo/Sony in your avatar!
Last edited:
Banjo64
cumsessed
GHG
Member
He's about to go on a rampage.
It's just a shame that sage is banned and the mage has been decommissioned.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked