Support us on Patreon
PayPalDespite opposition from the UK CMA, and the ongoing legal battle in the USA, the acquisition of Activision Blizzard takes a step forward as the European Commission has approved it now.
In a press release the EU Commission made it clear that initially, they did feel the deal could "harm competition" in the console and PC gaming space (including cloud gaming). However, after their "in-depth market investigation" they changed their mind and said Microsoft "would not be able to harm rival consoles and rival multi-game subscription services" but that Microsoft could still "harm competition in the distribution of games via cloud game streaming services and that its position in the market for PC operating systems would be strengthened".
So why are they approving it? Microsoft offered up these terms for cloud gaming for 10 years:
- A free license to consumers in the EEA that would allow them to stream, via any cloud game streaming services of their choice, all current and future Activision Blizzard PC and console games for which they have a license.
- A corresponding free license to cloud game streaming service providers to allow EEA-based gamers to stream any Activision Blizzard's PC and console games.
Once those were set the EU decided the commitments "fully address the competition concerns identified by the Commission and represent a significant improvement for cloud game streaming compared to the current situation".
The UK CMA are standing firm though, releasing a statement on Twitter in a small thread. To save you clicking around their statement says:
The UK, US and European competition authorities are unanimous that this merger would harm competition in cloud gaming.
The CMA concluded that cloud gaming needs to continue as a free, competitive market to drive innovation and choice in this rapidly evolving sector.
Microsoft’s proposals, accepted by the European Commission today, would allow Microsoft to set the terms and conditions for this market for the next 10 years.
They would replace a free, open and competitive market with one subject to ongoing regulation of the games Microsoft sells, the platforms to which it sells them, and the conditions of sale.
This is one of the reasons the CMA’s independent panel group rejected Microsoft’s proposals and prevented this deal.
While we recognise and respect that the European Commission is entitled to take a different view, the CMA stands by its decision.
We're still multiple months away from seeing what happens overall though, since the US FTC case is still pending.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Arehandoro May 16, 2023
TheRiddick May 16, 2023
Quoting: Purple Library GuyNo, they just don't like monopolies, or even oligopolies. Which I'm morally certain you already knew before you asked.
Well its a bit late now isn't it. They should have complained way back when Disney and Apple started buying up the planet....
Arehandoro May 16, 2023
Quoting: TheRiddickQuoting: Purple Library GuyNo, they just don't like monopolies, or even oligopolies. Which I'm morally certain you already knew before you asked.
Well its a bit late now isn't it. They should have complained way back when Disney and Apple started buying up the planet....
People did.
Last edited by Arehandoro on 16 May 2023 at 10:33 am UTC
Quoting: massatt212to many people are on hopium that microsoft is gonna do something about the problems with activision management... no microsoft is just after more ip's for their cloud gaming services... their goal is to create a cloud gaming services monopoly cause thats the future they see... there is probably some kinda stupid loophole in the agreement so they dont have to wait 10 years...
i think they can get ride of the sex schandals to save their own reputation... but its not like if anyone would boycot windows if they didnt.
as for they having an monopoly on cloud, they kinda of already have, they got 70% of marketshare a few time after entering the space, and the trend is that number going up, especially with an big company like google giving up, the only one who relied on linux to do the job (amazon is experimenting with proton though)
i dont see how this number could decrease, i mean, what investor would rather invest in amazon luna or nvidia geforce knowing that?
" 90s that contributed to this directx centered gaming development"
to be fair, prior to that, openGL should be the standard, but in pratice every video card vendor had an sub par openGL implementation and tried to force their own API instead, afaik.
Quoting: RedWare64And considering Microsoft's track record, they are bad at taking advantage of their IPs and acquired studios.Going by the now-infamous anecdote about how, when they bought Rareware, they thought that they were getting Nintendo's Donkey Kong because Rareware had collaborated on that series years earlier, I'm not entirely sure that they even always know what they're actually buying.
Quoting: RedWare64And considering Microsoft's track record, they are bad at taking advantage of their IPs and acquired studiocough cough rare cough cough.
seriously, Killer Instinct was good from what i heard, but it was not developed by rare, they purchased an studio and outsource the development of on of its ips, because they couldnt manage it thenselves.
Rarereplay is a good deal, but its just an reminder of what types of games rare will not produce anymore, what is the point of paying gor an game if you know the company wont produce more of the same ? making stake holders happy?
the whole purpose of paying for something instead of pirating it is to make sure the company will make more products like those.
the only thing microsoft seems to be good at is using the IP name as an free marketing for something, selling due to the branding instead of content.
sea of thieves may prove me wrong, proving that Rare is still capable of doing new ideas instead of relying on the brands from the past.
but i doubt they wouldnt be doing even more if they were still indies or nintendo partners.
hell, when doublefine was talking about the new psychonauts, they said that they were able to improve the game thanks to the microsoft funding, guess what improvment was quoted? graphics.
sigh, seriously if he said: "we have many new gameplay mechanics that were too troublemsome to implement, test, polish to make sure they are fun to play, but thanks to microsoft we were able to do it!" then i would be excited.
but no, microsoft creativity can be sumed up as: pretty graphics.
CanadianBlueBeer May 16, 2023
sigh.
Quoting: elmapulQuoting: RedWare64And considering Microsoft's track record, they are bad at taking advantage of their IPs and acquired studiocough cough rare cough cough.
seriously, Killer Instinct was good from what i heard, but it was not developed by rare, they purchased an studio and outsource the development of on of its ips, because they couldnt manage it thenselves.
Rarereplay is a good deal, but its just an reminder of what types of games rare will not produce anymore, what is the point of paying gor an game if you know the company wont produce more of the same ? making stake holders happy?
the whole purpose of paying for something instead of pirating it is to make sure the company will make more products like those.
the only thing microsoft seems to be good at is using the IP name as an free marketing for something, selling due to the branding instead of content.
sea of thieves may prove me wrong, proving that Rare is still capable of doing new ideas instead of relying on the brands from the past.
but i doubt they wouldnt be doing even more if they were still indies or nintendo partners.
hell, when doublefine was talking about the new psychonauts, they said that they were able to improve the game thanks to the microsoft funding, guess what improvment was quoted? graphics.
sigh, seriously if he said: "we have many new gameplay mechanics that were too troublemsome to implement, test, polish to make sure they are fun to play, but thanks to microsoft we were able to do it!" then i would be excited.
but no, microsoft creativity can be sumed up as: pretty graphics.
U forgot battletoads
Quoting: TheRiddickI dunno about the rest of 'em, but I did. Much good it did me, but that's no reason to stop now.Quoting: Purple Library GuyNo, they just don't like monopolies, or even oligopolies. Which I'm morally certain you already knew before you asked.
Well its a bit late now isn't it. They should have complained way back when Disney and Apple started buying up the planet....
Quoting: dirkdierickxMS will gladly make these changes, but probably violate them before those 10 years are up. EU will fine MS, but as usual the fine(s) will be peanuts and MS will be happy to pay.
EU fines does not work the same as US fines, EU fines are increased until you comply.
See more from me