POKEYCLYDE
Member
Harassment and misconduct reports popping up before renegotiation, very interesting.
-
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
ChorizoPicozo
Member
is not that easy I am afraid.
Topher
Gold Member
Agree. That's why I don't put any weight behind Google's claims as far as MS is concerned. If they had created a compelling product, like Nvidia did, then that would be different, but Google just sucked at gaming and their demise was inevitable.
Last edited:
Drell
Member
Yeah like they could use even more monney to hide them even more.
I'll put respect on it when it starts to make money or be important
feynoob
Member
It's already important to the CMA, unless CMA are shit.
Topher
Gold Member
Seen a few trillion dollar corporations who have thought cloud gaming was important enough to invest heavily in it.
bitbydeath
Member
Sony can’t keep getting away with this!
demigod
Member
Who’s this? She wants his D.
freefornow
Gold Member
One of Microsofts competitors, who are against the aquisition, tell the CMA that MS is to blame for Stadias demise.
sainraja
Member
I think they all have "failed" projects. Google is probably the only one who has a website dedicated to theirs lol.
-
As far as saying Google didn't try, well, they did try. They went with the model of buy to play in a world full of subscriptions, for technology that users would not own, I suppose that is similar to video streaming in a sense but they were either too early or too late. Ultimately, they needed to get content and if content is getting bought up, well, that makes it harder, no?
Last edited:
Torrent of Pork
Banned
Ironically if Google came out from the jump, and said, "If we ever decide to shitcan this service we will provide you with a full refund," they might have been able to generate enough consumer trust to make it self sustaining.
When you're Google, and ask people to shell out full price for a digital license that's kind of a non-starter, and it's entirely their fault.
When you're Google, and ask people to shell out full price for a digital license that's kind of a non-starter, and it's entirely their fault.
Last edited:
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
Around 40 nations have approved the deal and only one nation has blocked and defined cloud as its own market, everywhere else the cloud is seen as a subset of the gaming market. The CMA's theories have failed to stand up to scrutiny to every other regulator in the planet thus far.
Last edited:
feynoob
Member
No, google didn't bother themselves that much.
There were a lot of content that weren't up for sale by other companies.
Unlike Nvidia, google went with its own system. It was like a mini console, but only works through cloud. That itself made the service limited.
Why Did Google Stadia Die? Experts Point To Lack Of Content, Technology Incompatibilities
New insights, plus expert commentary, suggest why Google folded its Stadia consumer gaming project: lack of content and less-than-ideal technology infrastructure.
www.google.com
Had google used windows OS, they would have been able to get a lot of content. They limited themselves, and paid the price.
reinking
Gold Member
The difference is the EU felt the remedies that MS offered in that space were sufficient. The CMA disagrees.
freefornow
Gold Member
In light of Bobby's proclivities, did anyone else get a giggle from the name of Activisions KC? Lord "Grabiner".
I
I
feynoob
Member
It's their country and they are protecting their business. That is their job as regulators.
If they deem cloud market as its own market, which needs regulation, they are doing their job.
My only issue with CMA is that they are pretending blocking this deal will protect that market. When in reality it won't do that much.
There is a reason why Google failed. And that is the lack of content. EU managed to fix that, by forcing MS the free license. On other hand, the CMA is limiting the content that these companies can get by this purchase.
MS might not be able to buy Activision, but they still have a lot of content, which makes the most attractive service. The gap would continue to grow and grow, until there is no one that can compete them. That is something the CMA is ignoring. Gamepass is much bigger than Activision/blizzard entirely. It provides MS unlimited content by having that service.
Good luck protecting that market.
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
Nope that doesn't contradict what I said. The CMA says the cloud market is its own market, everyone else disagrees. The EU specifically states this.
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
But they are blocking an international deal for everyone not just themselves. If it was only about the UK the CMA could have barred ABK and MS from offering this services in the cloud there. But they didn't, they blocked it for everyone which is why the CMA is under such hot water recently, parliament is in their ass, the PM is the on their ass even the Chancellor is criticizing them over their decision. Because said decision has geopolitical consequences why? Because the world isn't only the UK.
Last edited:
feynoob
Member
The eu wants a fix, instead of stopping it.
Stopping it is just delaying the inevitable. Xcloud with gamepass is too strong. By forcing MS to do free license for those games, it allows other companies to compete with MS.
It's better outcome, than saying no to this deal. Because at the end of the day, MS has gamepass for content, and those companies don't have that.
It's the downside of this deal. No one is regulating MS dominance, because they are busy with Activision, instead of the big elephant in the room, which is gamepass+xcloud.
All games | Xbox Cloud Gaming (Beta) on Xbox.com
www.xbox.com
I think people downplay Google's challenges to enter the market and paint it as only incompetence.
Imagine trying to enter a market where 90% of games are incompatible and won't run on your service because of the OS, then having to convince devs that your starting from zero install base is worth porting to. Imagine trying to attract users with this. The usual remedy is paying the developers to remove this chicken or egg situation but you have to deal with incumbent competitors. There is no way an arch enemy actively buying huge western developers and IPs wasn't going to make that even more difficult for you and limit who you could make agreements/partnerships with. Google were slowly entering partnerships with Zenimax and Activision-Blizzard in 2020 before they were acquired. I suspect they blamed the Zenimax acquisition (they did this before the Activison acquisition was even made so has nothing to do with it) because they were either in the running to get them or wanted to enter some big marketing push or exclusivity agreements with them to attract users to their service. The incumbents made that difficult though and MS ultimately made it impossible even with Google's cash.
Imagine trying to enter a market where 90% of games are incompatible and won't run on your service because of the OS, then having to convince devs that your starting from zero install base is worth porting to. Imagine trying to attract users with this. The usual remedy is paying the developers to remove this chicken or egg situation but you have to deal with incumbent competitors. There is no way an arch enemy actively buying huge western developers and IPs wasn't going to make that even more difficult for you and limit who you could make agreements/partnerships with. Google were slowly entering partnerships with Zenimax and Activision-Blizzard in 2020 before they were acquired. I suspect they blamed the Zenimax acquisition (they did this before the Activison acquisition was even made so has nothing to do with it) because they were either in the running to get them or wanted to enter some big marketing push or exclusivity agreements with them to attract users to their service. The incumbents made that difficult though and MS ultimately made it impossible even with Google's cash.
feynoob
Member
The deal requires CMA approval. If it didn't require that, it could have been different.
As long as it requires CMA approval, it won't get passed.
feynoob
Member
First rookie mistake is getting in to a gaming market, without having a content.
Google could have bought EA, Activision and other big publishers. They didn't.
They didn't bother acquiring their own studios like MS did with rare and Bungie.
Google thought this was a childish play and paid the price. Look at Sega as example. All it took was not good hardware for them to lose their position. Even though they had the contents.
Nothing is guaranteed in gaming sector. It's why you make a long term plan and true to execute it.
Their biggest failure was hiring Phil Harrison. Guy sank both PS3 and Xbox one.
Nvidia is a hardware company. Google is a cloud and software company. Of course they went with their own system. Nvidia is essentially a "mini console" too. The difference was nvidia doesn't care about software sales only using its hardware to offer a service.
That's the problem. You expect a service to rely on a competitor due to the anticompetitive nature of the market. Their hope was on securing content by paying for content support but competitors were making that difficult to impossible for given IPs and publishers and they ultimately gave up.
Kilau
Member
feynoob
Member
Nvidia OS allows you to play those games, while stadia OS needs devs time to develop games for.
Google should have made it easier for devs. Going to the Nvidia routing would have benefited them more. Make a windows launcher and sell your games there.
That is business. Xbox isn't getting certain games because of that. PS isn't getting zenimax because of that. Switch isnt getting big AAA games because of their system limitation and devs won't put time and effort on that console.
There is no excuse for Google. They had the money to buy a publisher and establish a position. They didn't even have a proper first party studios. They weren't taking this shit seriously.
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
Ok but that doesn't address what I said, the CMA isn't the world which is why they are being pressured by the UKs most powerful government officials. That and the deal does not require CMA approval but it certainly makes things easy if the CMA approves. The acquisition agreement can be altered if the parties desire. The deal will pass, it is inevitable now. There is no major obstacle for MS now that 2 of the key 4 regulators have approved it. The US will approve it by the end the year because the FTC does not have the facts to block this deal, they lose pretty much every merger case and the EU has made the FTCs life even harder now.
That leaves the UK, with all other big regulators approving that leaves the UK in a tough position as they will not want to go against the world geopolitically specially in a US - US merger that the US has approved. It's bad enough with EU approval but now China and soon the US will break the CMA. One of their biggest excuses in the tribunal and when they testified to parliament was that the US was blocking it showing that the CMA is not alone in it's block. With no one backing it up the CMA will either reassess or risk MS closing without them and paying whatever fees and perhaps even carving out xCloud ABK games out of the UK. But before such a scenario the CAT would have to rule in the CMAs favor which is not looking very likely after yesterdays CAT hearing. The acquisition will close it's not a question of whether but when, if the CMA cuts a deal before the CAT trial it can close before July/august. If not then the CAT will handle it.
feynoob
Member
feynoob
Member
You need approval of China, eu, US(FTC) and CMA to close this deal.
If any of those denies it, they won't close it.
It's like buying a car, but not registering it. You won't be able to drive it, until your do title registration. That is what those approval are.
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
No you don't the merger agreement can be altered when ever the parties want I already stated this in my previous post. And you don't even need the FTC to close, you can close without their approval frankly you don't seem to know much about US law.
Last edited:
Dlacy13g
Member
The problem is Google took the "Field of Dreams" approach of if we build it they will come but they didn't build it right. They launched with zero 1st party and thought they could get away with eventually building that out and still keeping their ecosystem closed.
demigod
Member
Leaving the UK script is back boyz
bitbydeath
Member
The US also blocked it, FYI.
James Sawyer Ford
Member
The three biggest markets have all raised concerns
UK CMA blocking it for Cloud
EU allowing it but said remedies for Cloud are sufficient
US FTC filing suit
It’s disingenuous to claim this is all some universal approval of the deal and that there aren’t legitimate concerns raised in the largest markets
Last edited:
They might have possibly tried with Zenimax but do you think these big publishers like Zenimax, Activision-Blizzard or EA are happy to merge with Google for the startup project Stadia? Do you think MS isn’t willing to pay considerably more and has massive marketshare in key segments compared to them with which to make a return from that investment and outbid them? Google didn't contest the acquisition on Zenimax because it was pro mergers (may even have been in the running with it being considerably cheaper than EA or Activison), then the next one hit with Activision too and Google know there is no way they can make the numbers work and outbid them to enter these markets. $70B isn't something you just put into a project you're trying to get off the ground.
I'd like to know what you would do differently. What steps you would have taken differently.
I get the meme but Phil Harrison didn't sink PS3. He successfully launched PS1 and PS2 too. For PS3 he had nothing to do with the hardware or price. He was president of SCE Worldwide Studios only. Some here would even argue SCE WS output was good on the PS3. He didn't even sink xbox either, he was only vice president in Europe and headed the likes of Lionhead and Rare for a few years and Phil Spencer himself was above him during it. Blaming the shitshow that was the xbox one launch issues on Harrison is a little reaching but I get the humorous meme.
Last edited:
There is no such thing as an nvidia OS. It's MS' OS.
For what? To help and fund your competitors and not be able to compete on costs? Google were trying to launch a software platform, Nvidia are trying to launch a hardware service.
And that is regulation. Pointing out where anticompetitive mergers may make it difficult for new entrants. Doesn't mean we have to pretend they have no effect because "it's business".
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
"You'll own nothing and like it." - WEF members
Those are based on projections tho. It's not currently important in any tangible sense.
Could it be some day? Maybe but I don't sense it gaining any sort of traction. It's just there, same as it's been.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
How did you get that from what I said?
MasterCornholio
Member
Suicide pill?
bitbydeath
Member
It was a joke
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Projections in any business mean nothing.
I invested in weed stocks in 2017 when it was a gold rush of analyst estimates and tons of companies doing it. I remember projections like "by 2025, the cannabis market will be in excess of $200 billion"
Were 2 years away and I don't think all the big weed companies combined are even at $2 or $3 billion.
Well, lets see if the industry can grow $197 billion in 2 years. lol
POKEYCLYDE
Member
I didn't land. Maybe you think I'm a Microsoft fan, so I'd blame everything on Sony? But ABK being in hot water only helps Microsoft in renegotiation.It was a joke
At least try to make your joke make sense.
![L*][*N*K](/data/avatars/m/842/842515.jpg?1696510303){kind=avatar}
L*][*N*K
Banned
I wouldn't count on it.....YET
MasterCornholio
Member
At least we have dates now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked