Well, that bobby kotick for you.
Gaming Microsoft buying Activision | CMA blocks deal over concerns for the cloud gaming market, decision to be appealed, Blizzard EVP threatens UK
- Thread starter shamans
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Always has been an odious twat!
Still, will be interesting to see how it develops. I've always been against publishers buying up dev teams, especially since what happened to Rare all those years ago. But MS have a way of doing business that has always been horrible, and publishers themselves getting hoovered up is just bad for everyone who loves gaming.
MS have actually been praised by regs over the last ten years. however, that sentiment may be changing now.
That means very little though, considering how they got to that point.
Not that this is all MS bashing, they are all the same. MS just were/are better at it than most. And in gaming terms, Sony have done just as much shady shit with dev teams they've bought. Which is why we should always be wary of these things, it goes beyond arguing over brand loyalty and all that nonsense, in reality the industry still has a long way to grow and needs to stop stifling creativity in one way or another. Read up on this prick Kotick and his plan for intellectual properties in the early days for example. (BTW I kind of met him once, he looked like a baked bean in a wig and made about as much sense).
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-c...e-cloud-gaming-market-is-what-matters-opinion
This is a excellent article. Full of spot on points. This was never about the console war.
This is a excellent article. Full of spot on points. This was never about the console war.
Well yeah, that's why the deal wasn't made earlier when they could have and also why the GP is heavily subsidised. As I said somewhere in here, this deal still doesn't make the Xbox division close to Sony in the gaming market so they don't care about that. That's precisely why I kept trying to get you to see who was actually buying Activision and also why I've repeatedly scoffed at their attempts to use the current systems to push this deal through. The other day I was talking in another thread about Sony subsidising the Playstation hardware in the past and would again to get them out of any issues, but at the moment that's something like a 3rd of the company. Xbox is negligible on the grand scheme of things to MS, so much so when they were going to sell it to EA even that stumbled because of the future rights to online services and tying the companies up which EA weren't fond of. That would have been allowed back then without a thought too, probably not so much now.
I did forget about the Geforce now stuff though, it's hilarious when you think about it
Microsoft don't give a flying shit about gaming and market share in that right now, it's all about maintaining or even strengthening their coming position. They are still fundamentally a software company who pretty much controls the vast majority of the world's systems. Eventually everything will be cloud and we won't be using things like windows to run anything at home, they need to be in control of what comes next. Gaming is the best gateway into that for the future generations in terms of people using their products, but also they clearly thought a sneakier way than buying an outright competitor to lock out something that still won't be a worldwide thing within the next 15-20 years or so.
What I don't get though, is the sheer shambolic nature of this bid. I mean, why not have just pledged to have ALL Activision and Bethseda games on rival formats for 100 years? As that article said, and again I said in here before about theirs and Activision's arrogance, their weak argument actually agreed with the CMA stance in that sense.
I did forget about the Geforce now stuff though, it's hilarious when you think about it
Microsoft don't give a flying shit about gaming and market share in that right now, it's all about maintaining or even strengthening their coming position. They are still fundamentally a software company who pretty much controls the vast majority of the world's systems. Eventually everything will be cloud and we won't be using things like windows to run anything at home, they need to be in control of what comes next. Gaming is the best gateway into that for the future generations in terms of people using their products, but also they clearly thought a sneakier way than buying an outright competitor to lock out something that still won't be a worldwide thing within the next 15-20 years or so.
What I don't get though, is the sheer shambolic nature of this bid. I mean, why not have just pledged to have ALL Activision and Bethseda games on rival formats for 100 years? As that article said, and again I said in here before about theirs and Activision's arrogance, their weak argument actually agreed with the CMA stance in that sense.
The problems with agreeing to all formats for 100 years is that it's not practical. But if they could, they would. However the bigger issue with that is the CMA.That would fall under a 'behavioral remedy'. And they just don't do those. A 100 year agreement would not have been enough. The CMA wants to spilt up ABK and let MS have a part of it. But MS doesn't want that. So, here we are.Well yeah, that's why the deal wasn't made earlier when they could have and also why the GP is heavily subsidised. As I said somewhere in here, this deal still doesn't make the Xbox division close to Sony in the gaming market so they don't care about that. That's precisely why I kept trying to get you to see who was actually buying Activision and also why I've repeatedly scoffed at their attempts to use the current systems to push this deal through. The other day I was talking in another thread about Sony subsidising the Playstation hardware in the past and would again to get them out of any issues, but at the moment that's something like a 3rd of the company. Xbox is negligible on the grand scheme of things to MS, so much so when they were going to sell it to EA even that stumbled because of the future rights to online services and tying the companies up which EA weren't fond of. That would have been allowed back then without a thought too, probably not so much now.
I did forget about the Geforce now stuff though, it's hilarious when you think about it
Microsoft don't give a flying shit about gaming and market share in that right now, it's all about maintaining or even strengthening their coming position. They are still fundamentally a software company who pretty much controls the vast majority of the world's systems. Eventually everything will be cloud and we won't be using things like windows to run anything at home, they need to be in control of what comes next. Gaming is the best gateway into that for the future generations in terms of people using their products, but also they clearly thought a sneakier way than buying an outright competitor to lock out something that still won't be a worldwide thing within the next 15-20 years or so.
What I don't get though, is the sheer shambolic nature of this bid. I mean, why not have just pledged to have ALL Activision and Bethseda games on rival formats for 100 years? As that article said, and again I said in here before about theirs and Activision's arrogance, their weak argument actually agreed with the CMA stance in that sense.
Yep, but it would at least look more like a genuine attempt to get people on side.
Have you seen old Beany is now putting out there that the FTC has got to the CMA?
Well of course they don't. Not for the kind of money and deep untangling it would take anyway. As I've said, it will be interesting the path they go down now. I guess it all depends on when the answers from the other regions come what they do next, but no way MS just walk away from this that easy.
Frankly, considering what's at stake, they simply can't.
In the US at least, I think they'd likely get approval if it goes all the way to court. The burden of proof is on the government, and they just don't have a good market concentration argument. I don't imagine a judge will be anywhere near as moved by a future market concentration claim in cloud gaming, in the way the CMA was.
If they get a reversal in either the US or EU I think they definitely walk. I'm surprised they didn't already on the CMA decision, because the timing for an appeal seems really long.
Yeah if either of those say no, then their options obviously go way down the pan anyway. But that has to happen, and as you said, it's way more open in the US. Is there a date for decisions with the others yet?
In any case, there's a lot at stake. The future of MS over the next half a century depends on how they navigate into the cloud world, so whilst they may walk from a straight up deal there's no way they give up on finding a way to achieve their goal. And we all know they are the masters at that.
About 3 weeks to the EU decision. If they reject, the whole thing will finally be over. If they approve, we're probably looking at anoter 9 months of this.
Fingers crossed then! Well, until the next time.
Though it's been an interesting conversation for the most part. And there's no way this is the last we see of this as we edge closer to the cloud being the dominant market.
EU should be coming sooner. US I think we're still months from hearings even starting.
Microsoft is the 2nd largest Infrastructure and Platform Cloud provider in the world, behind Amazon. And they've positioned themselves in this early stage as the leader in the AI race as far as cloud providers, due to their deal with OpenAI. They'll be alright if they can't close the deal with Activision.
The acquisition was as opportunistic as it was strategic, the price they're paying is in the range of ~25x Activision's earnings, which is very reasonable and came about due to the slump that Activision was in given the lackluster releases pre-COD MWII, and all of the culture issues.
Who needs studios when MS will have Xbox-GPT by end of the year
This post was generated by Alock1-GPT
Who needs games? Amirite?
Generative AI will make the games
Then in not too long humans won't be around to enjoy them but AI will have huge sway towards Xbox over Playstation. MS playing the long game.
Ah but then an Apple AI copy will patent MS's technology and turn all AIs into Apple AIs.
Wait what Edge is a brilliant new product available to everyone.
In all seriousness, proper use of AI could fast forward game environments pretty spectacularly in the near future I imagine? It could presumably make open world games very interesting without a lot the work that would be required.
Microsoft may abandon Activision merger if federal judge grants FTC request
Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9192...f-federal-judge-grants-ftc-request/index.html
Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/9192...f-federal-judge-grants-ftc-request/index.html
Yep, absolutely no shock here.