please stop quoting some rando ex-Microsoft and ex-Blizzard employee from twitter as if they’re some sort of objective reliable source
they’re not
I really like this thread, Grey. I was laughably expecting much more of an emotionally tone in your usually strict informative style of writing but I still like this piece.
Maybe not, but for the most part all of these links go to primary sources, that would still be valid regardless if he was involved.
I just like the context that Florian Mueller adds to it.
Gotta make it a bit more rhetorically spicy for Reddit/Twitter.
So far the post has about 15k views.
1 Like
eitherway I would rather this game division be turned over to anyone BUT Microsoft or Behavior interactive inc. Both are the world’s most disgusting companies and their handling of Minecraft at Microsoft has been total 
. With ubisoft trailing just behind, due to their bugs and issues that they just flatout refuse to fix.
With Behavior Interactive taking over Dead by Daylight from Starbreeze Studios. turning it also into heaps of .
Crytek I would never see getting a handle on it very well either. But I think at least their devs are active enough to give them SOME credit.
Epic games, absolutely not. They took a turn for the WORST in Fortnite recently.
Funny enough, people are making non-retail servers of Dead by daylight and the fun over there is top tier! Fan Created DBD realms are 
.
1 Like
in reality gamepass isnt a great deal and im agaisnt the cloud based stuff like im not renting a computer from a company i want to play only on the hardware i paid for not some rented system and i dont think microsoft can bypass authorities without risking a asset forfeiture
CMA always start by blocking large deals.
I’ve been involved in some part in 3 (2 of them directly involved) and CMA is written into the risk management plan.
It’s a non-issue.
The biggest threat they have is not cloud gaming, it’s monopolizing large IP and growing their user base as a result, then eventually squeezing out any competitors in the vertical chain of device, game, online subscription.
The UK have just written themselves into a mess and will just try to find a slightly less embarrassing way out than to just say “sorry, we were talking nonsense”.
FTCs concerns are more well founded and the US is a far bigger market so I doubt they can close without approval, however, I doubt it will come to that.
Aren’t they the same concerns?
-
- A weak argument that the 3rd place console manufacturer is a monopoly threat.
-
- The “baby market” called Cloud Gaming that barely exists.
Also unlike the CMA, the FTC actually needs to convince a Federal Judge that there’s direct measurable harm.
And that private copycat of the FTC case is all but dismissed already.
We in the UK love working our hardest to be the most hated nation in the west, as you can see.
This whole thing is insane.
2 Likes
The main issue is Call of Duty and Microsoft - and their likelihood to follow through with any agreement that prevents exclusivity. Microsoft have made assurances against exclusivity
- Call of Duty is the biggest selling game in the US and an unparalleled brand. It is market leader being purchased by a subscription service that can act as a gateway to exclusivity.
- Activision Blizzard is the largest independent developer and has other IP that is currently multi platform.
- Bethesda was purchased by Microsoft and Starfield was made an exclusive despite Microsoft giving assurance against exclusivity. This is also true for Redfall but… you know. (There are even conspiracies that they botched Redfall on purpose
). - Microsoft have been aggressive in purchasing developers to make Game Pass more attractive. No other company has the cash, scale and experience to do what they are trying to do. (Amazon has access to customers but not the scale and experience specifically in gaming to directly impact the market as soon as the acquisition is done)
What Microsoft are doing is trying to take market share away from Sony through Game Pass through a strategy that they simply can’t compete with.
I don’t believe looking at market share the way you have is accurately describing the issue. The Mobile gaming market is bigger than the PC and console market put together and is included in the figures.
The primary complaint is the console market but it’s worth noting that they have devices in all 3 categories. Cloud gaming does span devices so it’s conceivable that one day, the subscription service will but for now, the focus is the console market.
There is no doubt that if Microsoft were to make CoD exclusive, it would be an unparalleled disaster that Sony can’t recover from without a half a decade of planning and would give a Microsoft a direct line to the user that can spread to other devices.
Obviously Microsoft has already stated they will not make Call of Duty exclusive but the FTC just want to make sure.
I think the deal will go through the FTC because:
- Microsoft will give the necessary assurances
- You could argue Sony have a monopoly right now on the console market with such a high market share and number of exclusives
- Microsoft is American, Sony is Japanese - they care but not that much
The FTC said this, but it was later cleared up that Microsoft never gave that assurance to anybody.
The FTC just invented that idea from nowhere.
Note, Sony currently has 4.8x as many exclusives as Xbox. As well as a sizeable number of undisclosed paid exclusives.
With Lina Khan agreeing that in the “PlayStation/Xbox only” market, that Playstation has 68% marketshare, with only 32% for Xbox.
With it being very cost prohibitive for a user to forfeit their console and library to switch consoles.
Also the profit model for videogames has largely moved away from the videogames themselves. If Microsoft can get their percentage in MicroTeansactions, then they probably don’t care what system it comes from.
Yes noted below
This is incorrect. They did not make a Starfield specific assurance but they did give assurances.
As far as I’m aware, FTC has not backed down from that statement and their statement is true, if you are not reading it as a Starfield specific assurance.
It says so in the article you shared.
I don’t think that is very relevant strategically. New generations of console will come out. A strategy like this would be to secure a future market position.
Then they would be bucking the trend of companies looking to dominate through subscription services.
I believe it will go through and should go through for my previous reasons but this statement makes it seem like Microsoft are not trying to dominate the market and they absolutely are - any company would. Their core business is ALREADY a monopoly and they have built services around that monopoly. They have only recent started to lose share there.
Microtransactions primarily go through the relevant store for the device. They absolutely would be tracking this and would love to cut out the middle man.
In my eyes, the FTC are just doing their job and will cut a deal, whereas the CMA, as always, are just trying to be involved.
Then let’s go back further to last December. There was no promise from Microsoft to the EU. With the EU saying they cleared it without conditions.
It’s very relevant, because all games going forward will be reverse compatible with newer systems.
There’s no “generational reset” between current gen and next gen.
Lina Khan explicitly outlined in her college papers that if she ever got this position that she would be very radical with it.
Meanwhile, the only lawyer with any real tech experience at the CMA, was representing Sony against Microsoft.
Working at a law firm that’s been almost exclusively an Anti-Microsoft lawfirm for the past 20 years.
Would it be a stretch to say that those who reach a position of power oftentimes had big ideas in their college years?
Lofty ambitions gave them the drive to get there to begin with.
Isn’t that to be expected?
Character assassination attempts like this don’t actually strengthen the argument against those they target.
In fact they do the opposite.
There’s no reason to pursue that line of argument unless the detractors are unable to solidly refute the regulatory body’s actual arguments.
We’ve seen no solid refutation of the CMA’s arguments thus far.
Just a hyper-fixation on a specific number that has little bearing upon the wider context of the argument.
??? People still buy next Gen console and if games are on the game pass they aren’t leaving anything behind. This is no different to music and TV/movies moving to the subscription model.
People still bought new devices. I’m not against the acquisition but these arguments are a bit strange.
Well this makes sense. Amazon became Amazon because people didn’t really understand they were building monopolies. It does need pre-emptive thinking.
Well this explains CMAs daft position.
https://news.microsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/prod/sites/642/2022/12/Get-the-facts-ZeniMax-.pdf
Have a look at Microsoft’s own release and the wording. I would argue it’s ambiguous enough to be distrustful and (which, again what I stated FTC is likely looking for) points to FTC getting a very clear statement on what precisely is going to happen with Call of Duty.
Well that’s fair.
That said, looks like Microsoft published their appeal.
https://twitter.com/FOSSpatents/status/1662120235107774464
Basically
- Irrationality on Cloud Market Share size
- Including the irrationality of defining Cloud as a market at all, considering GamePass has the same billing regardless if installed locally or not.
- Ignored the impact of 3x Cloud Streaming deals (which is now global for any Cloud Streaming company)
- Irrationality that ActiBliz would promptly put their games into Cloud Gaming (I.e. Game Streaming) without this merger.
Well, the conspiracies get weirder on the Sony side
FOSSpatents blocked me on Twitter just because I asked him for evidence on a particular point.
He really doesn’t like being challenged on his views.