Activision appeals Blocked Merger with Microsoft arguing that Cloud Gaming is the same market as Native Gaming

[AlTech]

Summary

 

In a surprise to nobody, Activision is seemingly throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the appeal of the blocked Microsoft merger.

 

Sources at Activision close to the appeal who spoke on condition of annonymity have said senior leaders have admitted that Cloud Gaming is too niche and that it is becoming obsolete, and that gamers just want to play games. The source from Activision also said that Activision knows that gamers don't care how they play video games (E.g. via Native Gaming or via Cloud Gaming) so long as they have the ability to play the games. 

 

Activision in their appeal officially are arguing that the blocking was "unlawful" and "Irrational" and that Cloud Gaming is the same market as Native Gaming. Their reasoning for the 2 markets being the same is that consumers can easily switch between native gaming and cloud gaming and that native gaming is competing with cloud gaming.

 

Quotes

Quote

The appeal takes particular issue with the CMA's focus on cloud gaming in a vacuum, without taking into account competition from "native gaming" via games running on local hardware. The ability to easily switch from one type of game experience to the other means that cloud gaming should not be a "separate product market," Activision argues.

 

Quote

"Gamers want to play games. They don’t care whether they are downloaded or streamed," the source told Ars. "The CMA’s approach to this question was irrational..."

 

Quote

Activision also takes issue with the CMA's "irrational" argument that Activision would put its game on cloud services even without a merger. On the contrary, our source said that "Activision’s senior leaders told the CMA that the cloud streaming model is misconceived" and that "the massive increase in mobile gaming shows consumers prefer to play games downloaded to their own devices, and streaming is quickly becoming obsolete as mobile processing power explodes."

 

Quote

A case management conference that will help define how the appeal will move forward is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon. The CAT website notes that the group generally "aims to complete 'straightforward' cases in less than nine months."

 

My thoughts

So, I completely disagree with Activision here. Frankly their arguments are even more ridiculous than before. I wouldn't say it's easy to switch between Native Gaming and Cloud Gaming, especially considering many devices are not able to do native gaming at a competent level of performance.

 

Also the levels of mental gymnastics are insane, first they argue Cloud Gaming is the future and now they're arguing Cloud Gaming is obsolete. How does that even make any sense?

 

If Cloud Gaming is such a terrible market/strategy then why do they want the merger to go ahead unless it is to gain a monopoly on Cloud Gaming and make it better than everybody else's offerings?

 

Sources

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/05/activision-appeals-uks-irrational-unlawful-blocking-of-microsoft-merger/

[Blqckqut]

native gaming is way better, i find myself often switching my external hard drive into my laptop if i find a place where i can game while at school

[Alex Atkin UK]

Yeah, they're totally wrong on that.  Those of us used to native gaming will only use cloud when its absolutely the only option.  I mostly avoid even local streaming as the latency and image quality is too poor.

 

Most people choosing cloud gaming are doing so because they don't want the up-front cost/hassle of native gaming, or just need it to be extremely portable.  Its a very different market.

[Stahlmann]

I don't know much about the legality of it but how in the hell can the UK block a merge of 2 US-based companies?

 

Btw i would never give up native gaming for some cloud service, no matter how good it is. Modding is just too good to give up.

[Doobeedoo]

Yeah I mean I doubt they fully agree with that statement, but making any arguments that can help, helps. 

I expect this to pass eventually. 

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, Stahlmann said:

I don't know much about the legality of it but how in the hell can the UK block a merge of 2 US-based companies?

Because they operate in other countries than the US. Technically any country they operate in could object to the merger if they wanted to.

 

Usually the only groupings/countries that investigate and block global mergers are the US, UK, and EU. There are some exceptions though.

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Yeah, they're totally wrong on that.  Those of us used to native gaming will only use cloud when its absolutely the only option.  I mostly avoid even local streaming as the latency and image quality is too poor.

 

Most people choosing cloud gaming are doing so because they don't want the up-front cost/hassle of native gaming, or just need it to be extremely portable.  Its a very different market.

They either:

- Do not have the space

- Do not have the money for the hardware / time to order-setup-maintain it

- Live in a well-enough connected area (eg SF or NYC, Tokyo, Seoul etc) that latency will not be an issue

- Are travelling

 

Like the reason stadia was a failure, is the same reason Microsoft and Sony will fail at it. These companies have a reputation for putting out bad products that they don't support very long. After the Xbox 360, I'm quite frankly surprised anyone would buy another Microsoft console, considering all the other Microsoft hardware that has essentially been vaporware (Remember Nokia?) Sony has a reputation for proprietary my-way-or-the-highway approach and snubbing standardization. 

 

The biggest uptick we will see in cloud gaming will be MMO-type games and games that have tournament-scale appeal. You will not be seeing latency-sensitive games like fighting games, rhythm games or action RPG's being very fun on them.  So think Chess, Mahjong, Magic the Gathering, TT style RPG's like D&D, Monopoly. If it's turn based it will be more successful. Less successful will be things like Dead by Daylight and Fortnite where people playing with a native client will run circles around the players on cloud services. Sure you can play them, but you're at a disadvantage unless everyone is playing with the same cloud service.

 

Like amortize the cost of a high end gaming computer (eg around $3000) across the 7 years it's supposed to last and that is equal to $36/mo. You're paying a little less than half that for xCloud. But if the games you want to play are exclusive to 4 different services... well now it costs twice as much to have subscriptions to all of them.

 

Just to put the focus on the elephant in the room. The reason "subscription" services fail is because there is not enough new content to justify keeping the subscription. Like nobody subscribes to the Hallmark channel just to watch this years Christmas special. Nobody subscribes to Paramount+ to watch one season of Star Trek trickled out over 4 months. Nobody subscribes to Disney+ just to watch this years Disney animated film. If you want to watch or play something, you subscribe for the one month, binge watch the entire thing you wanted to watch, and then cancel, never to ever subscribe again that year. It's more cost effective to just buy the game or video on blueray if that's the only thing you want behind the paywall.

 

The added complexity needed to play games on a cloud service, means there is also a technical debt that would not exist that if the person just bought the game for their existing game console. If the cloud service goes down, or their internet goes down, or their power goes out, that cloud session ends and the player might have to start over from scratch. Where as if it was a local game, there is at least the expectation for the game to work without the internet. 

[pas008]

I'm sorry gaming is gaming

Cloud or native

Mobile PC console vr browser etc

Many of these companies make games for all too

 

[Brooksie359]

5 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Yeah, they're totally wrong on that.  Those of us used to native gaming will only use cloud when its absolutely the only option.  I mostly avoid even local streaming as the latency and image quality is too poor.

 

Most people choosing cloud gaming are doing so because they don't want the up-front cost/hassle of native gaming, or just need it to be extremely portable.  Its a very different market.

They did say that cloud gaming was niche and obsolete which tbh they are right about. Also the whole cloud gaming is for gaming on the go is a stupid idea as you would need to ensure a very stable internet connection meaning the places you could realistically cloud game at are very limited. Most would probably be better off just getting a gaming laptop at that point or they could get away with using a switch or their phone to play games on. Also I guess the steam deck is also a good option. I am actually going to side with them here that cloud gaming really isn't a lone market and it does compete with the existing gaming market which is why it is such a failure as it can't realistically compete well with the existing gaming market. I mean even you admitting that you wouldn't use cloud gaming over native gaming is a very clear indication that they are competing. 

[AlTech]

54 minutes ago, Kisai said:

They either:

- Do not have the space

- Do not have the money for the hardware / time to order-setup-maintain it

- Live in a well-enough connected area (eg SF or NYC, Tokyo, Seoul etc) that latency will not be an issue

- Are travelling

Cloud Gaming latency's too high anyways for almost all multiplayer games.

 

For games that don't care about latency it's fine but for anything latency sensitive it's a deal breaker.

54 minutes ago, Kisai said:

 

Like the reason stadia was a failure, is the same reason Microsoft and Sony will fail at it. These companies have a reputation for putting out bad products that they don't support very long. After the Xbox 360, I'm quite frankly surprised anyone would buy another Microsoft console, considering all the other Microsoft hardware that has essentially been vaporware (Remember Nokia?) Sony has a reputation for proprietary my-way-or-the-highway approach and snubbing standardization. 

I wouldn't consider myself biased with respect to Consoles but imho Microsoft makes the better controllers and in this gen the better console as well. I personally feel like Sony's console sells well because people either A) hate Microsoft or B) buy Playstation exclusives. I don't see a reason to buy a Playstation otherwise.

 

If there were no exclusives on Playstation or Xbox, I would be very shocked if the Xbox didn't outsell the Playstation hand over first.

54 minutes ago, Kisai said:

The biggest uptick we will see in cloud gaming will be MMO-type games and games that have tournament-scale appeal. You will not be seeing latency-sensitive games like fighting games, rhythm games or action RPG's being very fun on them.  So think Chess, Mahjong, Magic the Gathering, TT style RPG's like D&D, Monopoly. If it's turn based it will be more successful. Less successful will be things like Dead by Daylight and Fortnite where people playing with a native client will run circles around the players on cloud services. Sure you can play them, but you're at a disadvantage unless everyone is playing with the same cloud service.

 

Like amortize the cost of a high end gaming computer (eg around $3000) across the 7 years it's supposed to last and that is equal to $36/mo.

That seems to be an arbitrary number though. Also the average PC gamer doesn't spend $3K on a PC or upgrade every 7 years.

 

I'd say $1K to $1.5K every 2-3 years is more typical.

 

54 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Where as if it was a local game, there is at least the expectation for the game to work without the internet. 

Not likely if they're playing a modern AAA title which isn't exclusively Single Player.

[Brooksie359]

12 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Cloud Gaming latency's too high anyways for almost all multiplayer games.

 

For games that don't care about latency it's fine but for anything latency sensitive it's a deal breaker.

I wouldn't consider myself biased with respect to Consoles but imho Microsoft makes the better controllers and in this gen the better console as well. I personally feel like Sony's console sells well because people either A) hate Microsoft or B) buy Playstation exclusives. I don't see a reason to buy a Playstation otherwise.

 

If there were no exclusives on Playstation or Xbox, I would be very shocked if the Xbox didn't outsell the Playstation hand over first.

That seems to be an arbitrary number though. Also the average PC gamer doesn't spend $3K on a PC or upgrade every 7 years.

 

I'd say $1K to $1.5K every 2-3 years is more typical.

 

Not likely if they're playing a modern AAA title which isn't exclusively Single Player.

Yeah playstation exclusives are carrying Playstation sales for sure. I mean yes hardware does matter to an extent but both consoles play well so it's not really a determining factor. I know the Xbox and Xbox 360 sold so well because they got hard carried by halo and gears of War. Unfortunately both of those franchises are a shell of their former selves and can in no way compete with all of the good exclusives on Playstation like God of War. 

[Kisai]

7 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Cloud Gaming latency's too high anyways for almost all multiplayer games.

 

For games that don't care about latency it's fine but for anything latency sensitive it's a deal breaker.

The problem is a lot of people think "online gaming" and they think Fortnite, not Minecraft. Both of those are latency sensitive, but Minecraft is the one that will be less impacted by latency since it's not focused on combat. It's not like you'll place a block and because of latency it will place the block anywhere but where you aimed.

 

Most action-oriented games are too latency sensitive to be played, single play or multiplayer, because single player games can have 2 frames of latency and multiplayer games will have an additional 2-10 frames of latency to the server. So if your network topology is the worst case (eg living in Texas or Alaska, connecting to west-coast cloud servers, that in turn connect to east-coast game servers) you may quite literately end up at dial-up levels of latency.

 

 

7 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

 

 

I wouldn't consider myself biased with respect to Consoles but imho Microsoft makes the better controllers and in this gen the better console as well. I personally feel like Sony's console sells well because people either A) hate Microsoft or B) buy Playstation exclusives. I don't see a reason to buy a Playstation otherwise.

I haven't seen a reason to buy a console unless you explicitly want the exclusives, and even then, there is no justification to own a Playstation or Xbox unit just to play an exclusive. Nintendo? Maybe justified because Nintendo will never, ever, put any of it's games on another platform, let alone put it's older games on it's own platform. So if you want those your options are own the console or do without.

 

 

7 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

If there were no exclusives on Playstation or Xbox, I would be very shocked if the Xbox didn't outsell the Playstation hand over first.

That seems to be an arbitrary number though. Also the average PC gamer doesn't spend $3K on a PC or upgrade every 7 years.

 

I'd say $1K to $1.5K every 2-3 years is more typical.

$3000 every 7 years is the same as $1500 every 3. The number's the same and the argument isn't changed. PC gamers typically replace the entire computer every 7 years, but they may purchase a new GPU once or upgrade the RAM during that time frame. There has been no justification to replace the CPU in a desktop since DDR3 systems if the GPU is the actual pinch point. 

 

PCIe3->PCIe4-> PCIe5 systems don't readily justify an upgrade, they justify replacing the entire unit. But until there are GPU's and SDD's that use it, you can generally hold off.

 

7 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Not likely if they're playing a modern AAA title which isn't exclusively Single Player.

Again, a cloud game is not going to give you a 4K-Ultra experience, the lossy compression alone will lose you half the visual fidelity, and if it's a FPS/Action type of game where there is constant movement, it will also additionally look muddy as the compression will flake out a lot.

 

Here's an example from watching people on Twitch. A 720p60 stream at 6mbit looks reasonable. A 1080p60 stream at 6mbit looks awful, but will typically look "okay enough" if it's anything but a FPS game. A 4K stream, isn't available on twitch, but is available on Youtube, but I've never seen a single person stream at 4K. Like even LTT doesn't stream at 4K

 

 

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

The problem is a lot of people think "online gaming" and they think Fortnite, not Minecraft. Both of those are latency sensitive, but Minecraft is the one that will be less impacted by latency since it's not focused on combat. It's not like you'll place a block and because of latency it will place the block anywhere but where you aimed.

 

Most action-oriented games are too latency sensitive to be played, single play or multiplayer, because single player games can have 2 frames of latency and multiplayer games will have an additional 2-10 frames of latency to the server. So if your network topology is the worst case (eg living in Texas or Alaska, connecting to west-coast cloud servers, that in turn connect to east-coast game servers) you may quite literately end up at dial-up levels of latency.

 

 

I haven't seen a reason to buy a console unless you explicitly want the exclusives, and even then, there is no justification to own a Playstation or Xbox unit just to play an exclusive. Nintendo? Maybe justified because Nintendo will never, ever, put any of it's games on another platform, let alone put it's older games on it's own platform. So if you want those your options are own the console or do without.

 

 

$3000 every 7 years is the same as $1500 every 3. The number's the same and the argument isn't changed. PC gamers typically replace the entire computer every 7 years, but they may purchase a new GPU once or upgrade the RAM during that time frame. There has been no justification to replace the CPU in a desktop since DDR3 systems if the GPU is the actual pinch point. 

 

PCIe3->PCIe4-> PCIe5 systems don't readily justify an upgrade, they justify replacing the entire unit. But until there are GPU's and SDD's that use it, you can generally hold off.

 

Again, a cloud game is not going to give you a 4K-Ultra experience, the lossy compression alone will lose you half the visual fidelity, and if it's a FPS/Action type of game where there is constant movement, it will also additionally look muddy as the compression will flake out a lot.

 

Here's an example from watching people on Twitch. A 720p60 stream at 6mbit looks reasonable. A 1080p60 stream at 6mbit looks awful, but will typically look "okay enough" if it's anything but a FPS game. A 4K stream, isn't available on twitch, but is available on Youtube, but I've never seen a single person stream at 4K. Like even LTT doesn't stream at 4K

 

 

I mean if you bought a r7 1700 or a 7700k back when those came out then yeah you could easily upgrade your cpu in 3 years and see massive performance increases. I mean even 3000 series to 7000 series has a decent bump.in performance. I think the issue has been that the cpu market stagnated for a long time while Intel was stuck on 14nm and AMD was nowhere to be seen. I can easily see people upgrading more often with the gains we are seeing in cpu performance. 

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

Cloud gaming is the future!

Metaverse is the future!

Blockchain microtransactions are the future!

Sweet sweet dumb VC money  Oh, did I say the quiet part out loud? 

[Alex Atkin UK]

12 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I mean even you admitting that you wouldn't use cloud gaming over native gaming is a very clear indication that they are competing. 

Which is exactly why the UK objected to the merger, they see streaming as its own market where in the UK Microsoft already pretty much have the stranglehold.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

Which is exactly why the UK objected to the merger, they see streaming as its own market where in the UK Microsoft already pretty much have the stranglehold.

Ah yes because regulators have never made questionable decisions. That would be like saying Wendy's doesn't compete with Chipotle. I mean technically yes and technically no. Clearly as both places to buy food they compete but I guess if you are looking for specifically Mexican food then Wendy's doesn't compete. Granted I would argue that cloud gaming is less reasonable because I can imagine someone wanting Mexican food and looking at different Mexican food restaurants but I can't imagine anyone specifically seeking out cloud gaming. I would only imagine them wanting to play games and then cloud gaming would be an option making it very clear that cloud gaming is competing with other forms of gaming. 

[Mark Kaine]

WHY does it even matter if streaming or not... and how is it even RELEVANT?  Last time i checked most "Activision" games aren't "streaming"... ?

 

They're just trying to confuse judges and regulatory bodies,  right? 

 

Idk who's more stupid tbh so outcome unclear ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[IkeaGnome]

Here I am just hoping this passes so that *maybe* Microsoft will see Kotick for who he is and give him the good old boot.

[Alex Atkin UK]

6 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

Here I am just hoping this passes so that *maybe* Microsoft will see Kotick for who he is and give him the good old boot.

A fair take.

For me its not even about caring about Activision Blizzard games, I can't remember the last time I played one.  My objection is that big companies absorbing smaller ones NEVER works out well for the consumer.  Both Sony but especially Microsoft have ruined multiple developers when they bought them in the past, and it always ends up with layoffs, usually not the people who deserve it.

[IkeaGnome]

9 minutes ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

For me its not even about caring about Activision Blizzard games, I can't remember the last time I played one.  My objection is that big companies absorbing smaller ones NEVER works out well for the consumer.  Both Sony but especially Microsoft have ruined multiple developers when they bought them in the past, and it always ends up with layoffs, usually not the people who deserve it.

I play more than my fair amount of Blizzard games. I'm torn on how I spend money with them. On one hand, I don't want to give them another cent until he's not CEO anymore. On the other hand, they have amazing devs, and a full "I'm not playing or spending any money" just hurts them more than it would hurt Kotick.

 

He did a fairly "extensive" interview the other day that just sealed how I feel about him. Getting too far into it might derail this more than it needs to be, but a few of the sticking points:

Spoiler

Spoiler to save space and add some slight insight between quotes.

In 2021 there was a massive out pouring of employees and ex employees coming out with SA claims. 

Quote

• "The executive says he has been both humbled and outraged by what he considers malicious distortions about the company that he has taken to great heights over 32 years. He makes no apologies for Acti­vision or its culture. He says that the company is preparing to release a slew of data drawn from the EEOC investigation that he hopes will combat the perception that Activision was run as a “frat house.”"

• "“We’ve had every possible form of investigation done. And we did not have a systemic issue with harassment — ever. We didn’t have any of what were mischaracterizations reported in the media,” Kotick asserts. “But what we did have was a very aggressive labor movement working hard to try and destabilize the company.”"

Acti Bliz did an investigation into Acti Bliz and found that none of this had happened. Some back story on these allegations, people were saying they went to HR reps and supervisors and retaliated against. Not exactly something they'd keep records of, or want to come out and say happened on their own. I wouldn't trust any company that does their own internal investigation into similar claims and comes with the same response. It wasn't 1 or 10 people with these claims, there was hundreds, backed with evidence in a lot of cases. There was a petition signed by employees, and a short strike partially brought on by how ActiBliz handled the allegations, this gets spun into the "aggressive labor movement."

 

In response to this, developers changed names of characters that were tied to these allegations, and Blizzard removed the Diablo 4 game director. But you know, these are all rumors and never happened. 

 

I don't like using the Verge as a source, but most of the other sites that reported on it are blocked on my work computer as they're too related to gaming and entertainment.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/26/22638947/blizzard-overwatch-mccree-name-change-lawsuit

That article references a "Cosby Suite." That name wasn't given to it by the media or outsiders. It was given to it by the people that used it.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/7/28/22598508/activision-blizzard-cosby-suite-sexual-harrassment-allegations

https://metro.co.uk/2021/07/29/blizzards-bill-cosby-suite-at-blizzcon-is-worse-than-you-thought-15007134/

Quote

Photos and screenshots of Facebook group chat sessions were sent to Kotaku by a former Blizzard developer, which includes photos of large amounts of alcohol. The suite itself is described by the article as a ‘booze-filled meeting place’ where more junior staff were able to socialise with senior designers.

A screenshot of an alleged group chat is entitled ‘BlizzCon Cosby Crew’ and features a line from Blizzard designer David Kosak, who wrote ‘I am gathering the hot chixx for the Coz’.

Afrasiabi answers ‘Bring em’, to which Kosak replies, ‘You can’t marry ALL of them Alex’. Afrasiabi responds by saying, ‘I can, I’m middle eastern’. Lead designer Jesse McCree then adds, ‘You misspelled f***’.

But you know, Afrasiabi, the former creative director for WoW, who was let go over this investigation just doesn't exist when it's convenient for Kotick to vehemently deny that ActiBliz never had issues with SA. 

Quote

• "As Activision has grown, Kotick has become a handy villain, depicted as the rich suit who lives off the money that gamers shell out on their favorite pastime. The slogging on video game-centric social media platform has taken its toll on Kotick, and his family. “The hatred has turned into a lot of antisemitism,” Kotick says. “When you look at images of me are on the internet, there are these antisemitic undertones. My kids have gotten death threats.”"

I do not agree with death threats under any circumstance. That's purely uncalled for. As far as the antisemetic undertones go, I haven't found evidence of that, but if there hasn't been anything actually said or hinted at playing the victim card for being called out for stuff that happened under your watch is total B.S. and tasteless. 

 

I'd love to not give them a single cent of my money until Kotick is gone, but this was all handled completely differently by the developers and community around the game I play, Overwatch.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/krisholt/2021/08/30/overwatchs-mccree-name-change-is-a-small-but-necessary-move/?sh=19491fd84c40

Quote

The cowboy hero shares his name with Jesse McCree, a long-term developer at Blizzard who was ousted from the company this month. McCree was identified as a member of a group chat related to the infamous “Cosby Suite” at BlizzCon. McCree wrote at least one bad-taste comment in that 2013 group chat, as shown in a screenshot shared by Kotaku.

Casual players, pro players and streamers all stopped calling him McCree long before any hard evidence actually came out.

Team 4 and the rest of the individual teams are all very talented and deserve the best. The C suite of the company just keeps shooting it's self in the foot, and I figured by now they'd be out of ammo. I guess we know what they're buying with their checks.

 

[Albal_156]

On 6/2/2023 at 6:55 PM, Kisai said:

They either:

- Do not have the space

- Do not have the money for the hardware / time to order-setup-maintain it

- Live in a well-enough connected area (eg SF or NYC, Tokyo, Seoul etc) that latency will not be an issue

- Are travelling

 

Like the reason stadia was a failure, is the same reason Microsoft and Sony will fail at it. These companies have a reputation for putting out bad products that they don't support very long. After the Xbox 360, I'm quite frankly surprised anyone would buy another Microsoft console, considering all the other Microsoft hardware that has essentially been vaporware (Remember Nokia?) Sony has a reputation for proprietary my-way-or-the-highway approach and snubbing standardization. 

 

The biggest uptick we will see in cloud gaming will be MMO-type games and games that have tournament-scale appeal. You will not be seeing latency-sensitive games like fighting games, rhythm games or action RPG's being very fun on them.  So think Chess, Mahjong, Magic the Gathering, TT style RPG's like D&D, Monopoly. If it's turn based it will be more successful. Less successful will be things like Dead by Daylight and Fortnite where people playing with a native client will run circles around the players on cloud services. Sure you can play them, but you're at a disadvantage unless everyone is playing with the same cloud service.

 

Like amortize the cost of a high end gaming computer (eg around $3000) across the 7 years it's supposed to last and that is equal to $36/mo. You're paying a little less than half that for xCloud. But if the games you want to play are exclusive to 4 different services... well now it costs twice as much to have subscriptions to all of them.

 

Just to put the focus on the elephant in the room. The reason "subscription" services fail is because there is not enough new content to justify keeping the subscription. Like nobody subscribes to the Hallmark channel just to watch this years Christmas special. Nobody subscribes to Paramount+ to watch one season of Star Trek trickled out over 4 months. Nobody subscribes to Disney+ just to watch this years Disney animated film. If you want to watch or play something, you subscribe for the one month, binge watch the entire thing you wanted to watch, and then cancel, never to ever subscribe again that year. It's more cost effective to just buy the game or video on blueray if that's the only thing you want behind the paywall.

 

The added complexity needed to play games on a cloud service, means there is also a technical debt that would not exist that if the person just bought the game for their existing game console. If the cloud service goes down, or their internet goes down, or their power goes out, that cloud session ends and the player might have to start over from scratch. Where as if it was a local game, there is at least the expectation for the game to work without the internet. 

Then the MS decided to go with proprietary storage expansion modules for the Series X and S and Sony used M.2 drives.

[Arokhantos]

I think there is plenty of competition no need to block merger.

[Alex Atkin UK]

On 6/3/2023 at 10:10 PM, Arokhantos said:

I think there is plenty of competition no need to block merger.

The point is if it gives them a reason to NOT allow games from their platform on other services, those services no longer have enough content to warrant paying for them, they ultimately fail. 

 

Its one of the reasons Stadia failed, it cost too much for the limited content they were offering.  Streaming video services are arguably on the path to the same fate as people get fed up of having to pay for every single studios content separately.  Netflix dominated when they had access to a much wider variety of content than they do now.  Microsoft would effectively be copying this, having a large percentage of the content so its the only service that is appealing.

 

Yes they have promised to remain multi-platform for the time being, but you have to think of the long term damage to the market, not just the short term.  The sheer amount of short term thinking is why the US has very little competition in the ISP/telecom market, why there is little competition in a lot of business sectors causing prices to be high and service is to be low.

We have huge competition in the UK in the ISP/telecoms markets thanks to this kind of the intervention, cheap, fast, broadband with no data caps, even on 5G.  Arguably they didn't do a great job with supermarkets as while we still have a few, they allowed them to kill smaller businesses.

Big corporations conned a lot of the US into thinking regulation is a bad thing, when its quite the opposite, when the government actually care about doing a good job rather than bowing to their corporate overlords.  The latter being a problem, when your government is corrupt, all bets are off and sadly the UK are heading in the same direction, Brexit was the start of that. Not that I'm saying the EU doesn't have its issues, but when every member has to vote on things there are more layers of protection against one rogue government doing bad things.