- Pronouns
- He/him
Ah yes, the market famously solves all problems ever
-
Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
News The UK regulator CMA has blocked Microsoft’s proposed acquisition of Activision Blizzard to protect innovation and choice in cloud gaming
- Thread starter mazi
- Start date
- Pronouns
- He/Him
For any essential service like Food, Housing, Materials, technology like Computers and phones, utilities, or tools, hell no. Because people don't have a choice for any of those things. Which is why I would prefer the FTC breaking up grocery chains, food manufacturers, farming companies rather then worrying about gaming.
For entertainment, and non essential things. Hell yes. Videogames publishers wane and fall all the time. Remember, before 2017, Nintendo had a whopping 8% marketshare in the console space, and is now the market leader. Creative businesses just inherently work different.
ziggyrivers
thunder
- Pronouns
- He/him/his
The Market unnecessarily gave us $69.99 games
Nintendo has been saying this for years. Buying some other company means you will have to change the whole culture and it is really difficult to do that. More than just create a new studio.
I don’t get why people get so dismayed with Microsoft buying ABK, when the story of most companies show that it s more probable than not that the quality of the products actually may decrease and a new player actually appears.
JazzPotatoes
Koopa
- Pronouns
- He/Him
You don't seem to understand that your Disney example argues against the point you're trying to make:
Disney went on a buying spree buying up IP and studios. And the net result of that was:
1) Disney was able to use it's status as owner of the largest IP library to start abusing theaters, and demanding they give more of their screens over to Disney films at the expense of non Disney films. This is textbook monopolistic behaviour, and it hurt everyone.
2) A large amount of cultural content has now just been stuck in the vault, and we're seeing even new shows and films based on property Disney bought essentially being disappeared out of existence.
3) A large amount of pre existing IP became massively devalued because Disney was determined to try and outspend everyone and release a flood of films and series that ended up being crap. No one benefits from Disney trying to turn Star Wars into an annual movie series.
4) Because Disney has forced their way into a market leading position through large buyouts, we're now seeing that a downturn in Disney box office revenue is having a negative impact on overall film revenue, affecting theaters and other related industries.
I could go on: the way Disney has essentially been able to use it's position to dictate terms to VFX houses, etc etc
Disney is the current poster boy for why you do not let mega corporate mergers like this go through unchallenged.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yes, and that was unilaterally pushed by Playstation because they were in a huge comfortable position in the marketplace and convinced third parties to join them.
Both Microsoft and Nintendo didn't debut their first $70 game until 2023, years after Sony pushed it as the standard.
But even then, the vast majority of games aren't $70. Even games that used to be $70, aren't now. For example, I can go and buy ratchet and clank rift apart for $30. Nintendo's games besides TotK are $60.
And we have Indie games too, which are continually becoming a better value proposition.
Those are certainly negatives for Disney and the subsidiaries that they bought. But I would hesitate to say that it will long term affect the greatest industry. Because:
1. After years of Disney bullying theaters, theaters are now preemptively taking down Disney films in for more successful films. Many theaters in the country actually shut elemental down for more spider verse, made by Sony. And theaters are making room for films like the upcoming Barbie movie over Disney's blockbuster films like Indiana Jones.
2. This was true of Fox before the merger. And it's true for every single streaming service too, Netflix, Disney, HBO, Every single mega corporation does this, and that says more of US copyright law than anything.
3. True. And that doesn't really negatively affect the industry, because studios who have treated their IPs with respect have seen even more success(I.e. Top Gun, Shrek films, Illumination, ect.)
4. The thing is, they tried to force their way into a market position. But they completely failed. Netflix is still top dog in streaming, and their theater business is starting to plummet. If I had to guess too, I could see Disneyland and World starting to decline in a few years too. This is honestly putting other movie studios into a more advantageous position than they have in years.
- Pronouns
- he / him
And 6000 games on eShop under $10. But TOTK did good because it is good.
ohlawd
bruh
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Given the government labour lawsuits and the push to unionize at ABK, pretty sure the staff are happy with this result relative to the status quo, and the ones that aren't are the ones responsible for the dogshit culture within the company, so it's no big loss there.
Wouldn't count on this having a negative effect on employees, if I were you.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
They really put all their money on the FTC, didn't they?
It's almost fascinating, and quite funny, how hard the CMA is caving now.
Maybe next time, the CMA could try to align themselves with the EU regulators. Would've saved time and money.
fourfourfun
Moblin
Britain? Align with the EU? HA!
Semi Lazy Gamer
Like Like
JazzPotatoes
Koopa
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Dropping a Phoenix Down on this thread, as there have been significant developments:
www.theguardian.com
TLDR: Microsoft has sold off the streaming rights to Activision games to Ubisoft, who will own the streaming rights in perpetuity. Ubisoft can then license those games out to any streaming platform they choose who pay for the license, as well as being able to stream them on their own platform.
This is a pretty huge development:- this opens the door for any and all streaming platform, including Luna and PS Plus, to be able to stream Activision games over the cloud, rather than them becoming Gamepass exclusives.
While Ubisoft is not anyone's favourite company right now, it's difficult to see how this isn't preferable to MS just making the Activision catalogue exclusive to xCloud with a few token deals being made with GeForce Now for ten years.
Microsoft submits new Activision Blizzard deal to win over UK regulator
CMA opens new investigation into $69bn acquisition as tech firm offers to sell cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft
www.theguardian.com
TLDR: Microsoft has sold off the streaming rights to Activision games to Ubisoft, who will own the streaming rights in perpetuity. Ubisoft can then license those games out to any streaming platform they choose who pay for the license, as well as being able to stream them on their own platform.
This is a pretty huge development:- this opens the door for any and all streaming platform, including Luna and PS Plus, to be able to stream Activision games over the cloud, rather than them becoming Gamepass exclusives.
While Ubisoft is not anyone's favourite company right now, it's difficult to see how this isn't preferable to MS just making the Activision catalogue exclusive to xCloud with a few token deals being made with GeForce Now for ten years.
Last edited:
If and when COD finally wanes, MS can just buy another publisher. Monopolies can and do exist when one party has a dragon's hoard of cash and apparently no regard for ROI.
Dropping a Phoenix Down on this thread, as there have been significant developments:
Microsoft submits new Activision Blizzard deal to win over UK regulator
CMA opens new investigation into $69bn acquisition as tech firm offers to sell cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft
TLDR: Microsoft has sold off the streaming rights to Activision games to Ubisoft, who will own the streaming rights in perpetuity. Ubisoft can then license those games out to any streaming platform they choose who pay for the license, as well as being able to stream them on their own platform.
This is a pretty huge development:- this opens the door for any and all streaming platform, including Luna and PS Plus, to be able to stream Activision games over the cloud, rather than them becoming Gamepass exclusives.
While Ubisoft is not anyone's favourite company right now, it's difficult to see how this isn't preferable to MS just making the Activision catalogue exclusive to Gamepass with a few token deals being made with GeForce Now for ten years.
This is from the financial times:
I can't imagine thats true though, must be a mistake.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Dropping a Phoenix Down on this thread, as there have been significant developments:
Microsoft submits new Activision Blizzard deal to win over UK regulator
CMA opens new investigation into $69bn acquisition as tech firm offers to sell cloud gaming rights to Ubisoft
TLDR: Microsoft has sold off the streaming rights to Activision games to Ubisoft, who will own the streaming rights in perpetuity. Ubisoft can then license those games out to any streaming platform they choose who pay for the license, as well as being able to stream them on their own platform.
This is a pretty huge development:- this opens the door for any and all streaming platform, including Luna and PS Plus, to be able to stream Activision games over the cloud, rather than them becoming Gamepass exclusives.
While Ubisoft is not anyone's favourite company right now, it's difficult to see how this isn't preferable to MS just making the Activision catalogue exclusive to Gamepass with a few token deals being made with GeForce Now for ten years.
You might want to add, if i read the stuff correctly, that Ubisoft's deal is limited too. It's for all games so far, and new games for a timeframe of 15 years.
Meaning, after those 15 years, the streaming rights for all new ActiBlizz games revert back to MS.
But i think Ubi keeps the rights for everything until that point even after the 15 years are over.
You're right. I saw people calling this a divestiture, which it is most certainly not. They're not divesting anything, they're just bulk selling the streaming rights.
The idea is that MS won't be able to institute a cloud gaming monopoly this way, because even if they own ABK they won't own the streaming rights. You're right though that this feels like an unnecessary sidestep. It doesn't change much.
JazzPotatoes
Koopa
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The difference is that Ubisoft have much more reason to license out the games to a wider selection of cloud streaming platforms.
Microsoft own the streaming servers that xCloud is hosted on. They simultaneously own a streaming service and a console platform. That means if Amazon or Google want to license Activision games, Microsoft has less incentive to let them, as they are directly competing with their own cloud server platform. They also have less incentive to allow streaming on other consoles like Switch or PlayStation, because they are competing with their own hardware.
Ubisoft is not competing with Amazon, or Google, or Nintendo, or Sony, so has much less reason to not allow those platforms to negotiate for streaming rights to the Activision catalogue.
JazzPotatoes
Koopa
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This is it. Everything up to now and for fifteen years from now remains with Ubisoft in perpetuity, unless they decide to sell those rights on (which would likely be subject to regulatory approval).
From 2038, Microsoft can then choose where and how to stream new Activision games.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
You sure?
It might not have an additional negative effect, but its going to solve exactly nothing.
ABK is huge. MS is handsoff. Even if they wanted to change things substantially, which they failed to do at other studios, it would take years and years before there would be any positive effect.
fiendcode
Like Like
It's actually worse, because Ubisoft can monetize or even decline licenses. Microsoft couldn't do either under the global license they'd previously made as a result of the work with European regulators.
CMA in the end is really only limiting consumer choice and potentially raising prices.
JazzPotatoes
Koopa
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This is not true.
The licenses agreed with the EU previously by Microsoft were for consumers to be able to stream games they had already purchased a license for through platforms like GeForce Now.
The EU noted that there were still concerns about Microsoft potentially owning too much of the game streaming market, but ultimately decided there wasn't anything they could do about it.
The CMA deal is fundamentally different, because Ubisoft can now grant licenses to cloud platforms for people to stream games without first having to purchase a digital version of the game. As far as I understand it, Ubisoft have already announced their intention to bring games to services such as Luna, something that was previously not on the cards. In theory, Sony and Nintendo could also negotiate for licenses.
There is no reason why Ubisoft would have more incentive to keep Activision games off streaming platforms than Microsoft. Ubisoft can now license the library to competitors who operate a cloud platform completely separate from Microsoft, again something which was previously not on the cards.
fiendcode
Like Like
Microsoft's 10-year license was open and free. There were no restrictions they could place on cloud platforms unlike this Ubisoft arrangement. The one thing is that it was centered around BYOG (which is what most cloud services work under) and didn't have a licensing structure for MGS. I guess another could be the OS thing but that's really a functional non-issue for a streaming client anyway, the reality is Windows is already entrenched.
And you're badly mischaracterizing the EU decision, they approved the deal because they literally said Microsoft's license deal brought greater consumer benefits and fostered competition.
JazzPotatoes
Koopa
- Pronouns
- He/Him
You are mischaracterizing the nature of the deal here.
Microsoft offered open licenses to cloud platforms that allow you to play games you bought digitally. Ie:- GeForce Now.
This is not how the majority of cloud platforms operate, where the consumer signs up to the platform and automatically gets permission to play games on that platform as part of the subscription.
Microsoft's deal was inherently restrictive, as it still had the potential to allow xCloud to be the only place you could pay to stream games without buying them first. The new deal changes that: consumers will be able to stream games without a purchase license as long as the platform licenses the rights from Ubisoft. Which, again, they're indicating they're going to offer to as many platforms as possible.
They identified a problem, and thought the solution proposed by Microsoft was enough, even though it had demonstrable shortcomings.
The new solution proposed after consultation with the CMA goes a long way further in actually addressing the issues: competitors who offer their own cloud gaming platforms now have an avenue to negotiate to license games without having to worry that Microsoft is going to rely on uncompetitive tactics to try and diminish the value of their platforms against xCloud or Gamepass.
Microsoft is now no longer the final arbiter on which games get licensed to cloud platforms. That's a huge win
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Given it's , on paper, "more" than what the EU already asked for, i don't think they're going to be a roadblock.
Especially since everyone and their pets are aware that this Ubisoft deal is nothing but a "face-saving agreement" so that the CMA doesn't look totally look like the clowns they are.
JazzPotatoes
Koopa
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Explain this one to me. The CMA got Microsoft to divest more than the EC ever asked for, and have got the most concessions in terms of keeping cloud competitive.
The FTC got shut down at court, and the EC waved the deal through with a token nod towards gamers who purchased a digital license. The CMA deal goes further than either. So how are they the clowns?
fiendcode
Like Like
Uh, yes, most commercial cloud services, even even white label services like Ubitus, are BYOG. Luna, Stadia, GFN, Boosteroid, even Sony's new PS5 service currently testing, they're all based on title ownership.
And looking it up, we're both wrong... apparently the EU remedies did address MGS too. They were all inclusive, it's just that no MGS (like Luna+, Ubi+, PS+) decided to sign yet. I would guess this Ubisoft partnership likely arose out of talks in that direction actually.
And the simple reality is one deal was open and free, the new one is selective and monetized. By Ubisoft of all publishers (lol), you're way off on this being in any concrete way better for actual consumers or the market at large. It's better for the established industry participants for sure though.
This is still a willfully misleading and frankly incorrect take on your part, literally nothing was said about demonstrable shortcomings, nothing said about "nothing they could do about it", etc. Quite the opposite, Brussels had a glowing response to the deal and said it fully addressed their concerns:
JazzPotatoes
Koopa
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Amazon Luna allows users to sign up and play games without buying them.
PS Plus Premium allows users to stream PS1/2/3/4 games without buying them.
Stadia is dead.
GeForce Now offers streaming on games you already own, but this new deal opens up the option of them being able to license Activision games and let subscribers play them without buying them.
The EU deal was free to cloud companies. Consumers would still have to buy a copy of the game, then still sign up to a cloud platform to stream it off the cloud.
The new deal means consumers no longer have to buy a license for the game. There is no way that this is in any way biasing companies over consumers.
The fact their announcement was so glowing is why the CMA issued a response: there were still massive gaps in the MS proposal, gaps which the EC themselves acknowledged, but they just came out and said that MS had addressed them anyway.This is still a willfully misleading and frankly incorrect take on your part, literally nothing was said about demonstrable shortcomings, nothing said about "nothing they could do about it", etc. Quite the opposite, Brussels had a glowing response to the deal and said it fully addressed their concerns:
The fact of the matter is: the EC could have pushed Microsoft to divest streaming rights to a third party. They could have pushed for MS to allow consumers to stream games on a variety of different platforms without buying an individual license for games. They didn't. The CMA pushed for more concessions, and got them.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Acting on a lot of theoretic, sometimes downright unrealistic and delusioned, scenarios to find some superficial reasons to block the deal.
Acting like a organisation that somewhat dictates what's acceptable and not to other similar groups, overstepping it's own boundaries.
Acting like a spoiled child, partially fully ignoring communications, ignoring remedies offered because they already made up their mind to "deal has to be blocked".
The FTC and the CMA got shredded in the courts, showing what an awful job they've made. They're clowns because they got clowned in courts.
What the CMA now did is bring another third party in, who might end up having worse terms for all the services that want these games and don't have their own deal with MS/Acti. Ubi is basically a wild card in how this will play out in the end.
I don't see how consumers are being protected by such a move. It's simply a "See, we made something happen!" thing for the CMA. "Look Ma, i earned my salary this month!!!".
The EU regulators were the only ones with an objective approach. Told MS that they have issues with the base deal, listened and negotiated acceptable remedies with the involved parties and after their issues were adressed, allowed the deal to pass.
fiendcode
Like Like
No, Luna+ allows you to play games as a dedicated subscriber or Prime member. Luna is the service overall, most of which is also based on title ownership.
And the reality is, the majority of streamed games are done under BYOG. MGS is still in it's infancy and (unlike music or video) can't seem to gain any traction.
The EU deal was (and thankfully remains) free to ALL companies. And no, it also covered MGS so consumers could also pay for a service rather than the game itself, this is wrong information so please stop repeating it. The quote and link I gave you from the European Commission even clarifies this.
CMA issued a shockingly swift and unprecedentedly antagonistic response because they're in a Brexit driven optics war with the EC to establish their place among global regulators. Unfortunately they also picked the wrong case to stake their reputation on and it's kind of blown up in their face now. Broadcom/VMware would've been a much safer, and frankly legitimate, case to rally behind but they just let that one sail through this month. Even Amazon/iRobot probably would've been better, at least then they wouldn't have had to fantasize about unrealistic market scenarios a decade away to try and rationalize a block.
The EC got a more competition friendly (and thus consumer friendly) remedy out of Microsoft than the CMA did, they also managed that significantly faster and they didn't even have to embarrass themselves with the judiciary or public to make it happen. This whole case has been amateur hour at CMA (from SLC dropping math mistakes, to repeatedly getting ripped a new one at CAT to now being cornered into tossing out their previous order for an unheard of "3rd Phase") and the fact their worse remedy is also impacting other markets is really the piss cherry on top of this shit sundae. Disgraceful.
I think this is disrespectful towards the EC regulators, whom among FTC and CMA, had the most evidence backing up their findings. It's great that CMA got their concessions, but they achieved it through, let's say, less than elegant means.
This is why we have to wait for the full text. We need to see the extent of what MS and Ubisoft are obliged to do.
I'm not going to complain too much since I don't care about the cloud, but it's a shame that all the CMA has done is help empower an abusive corporation like Ubisoft.
- Pronouns
- he / him
I know it's the modern stuff that's more relevant, but talking about selling current and next-15-years Activision rights to Ubisoft sounds crazy when I think about the numbers involved. By the end of it, Ubisoft would have near-worldwide cloud control of the first ~58 years of Activision games?
ohlawd
bruh
CMA are clowns straight up. We know they didn't engage in any discussion with MS and we're supposed to praise that they got Ubisoft involved so they can say "we did something"? It's good that we're getting the deal through now but it shouldn't have come to this.
Nothing about this deal between MS and ABK required a divesture. Sorry, the folks at the CMA are clowns.
D
Deleted member 2258
Guest
Does this mean that Microsoft will have to pay Ubisoft to get their Activision Blizzard games on GamePass?
- Pronouns
- he/him
No, only for cloud streaming.
As someone who primarily games on Switch at this point I don't mind this deal going through. Consolidation is going to happen either way and at least now the Switch will get COD for those who want it. Sony has been trying to eliminate competition for years with shady moneyhat tactics but unfortunately for them they just ran into somebody with deeper pockets.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Am I sure that giving employees the ability to engage in unionization without corporate interference that allows them collective bargaining power to stand up against capricious management decisions like the single one example you pointed out is better than the status quo? .... yeah, unequivocally so.
Last edited:
Tentacle-tropes
Kremling
Tbf the only one who got shredded in court was the FTC. The CMA hadn’t reached that point yet, had a hearing where they embarrassed themselves though, but once they saw the verdict did a complete 180 to save some face.
