Well CMA are still insisting on divestiture based on the cloud SLC. I feel like so many people aren't reading the updated provisional findings where all of this is stated.
If CMA didn't feel like the cloud SLC wasn't enough for a divestiture you don't think they would have removed that from the PF? Why would they leave it on their as a joke? So they can have more egg on their face when they have to update to remove it....
Geforce now and boosteroid are byog providers Microsoft have yet to make a deal for non deal byog providers like playstation. 10 year+ is very important as cloud is a growing market, and handing over that much power over to Microsoft this early could hurt future and present cloud competitors. Now whether CMA hold onto what they want who knows
Well, FWIW they did offer a 10-year deal to Nintendo, but I get you mean in the sense of cloud providers who also have their own storefront to sell a copy of COD to for their customer base, of whom Microsoft haven't provided any such offer to, as you said.
Although I partly wonder if Microsoft try going in with Nintendo on a cloud partnership with Azure, similar to they have with Sega, and try using that to say to the CMA "nuh-uh, see!! We'll give deals to cloud providers who can also sell the game on their own storefront, too!", conveniently ignoring that Nintendo is specifically using their own
Azure tech for that hypothetical cloud network, Azure of course being owned by Microsoft.
I'm a bit concerned Microsoft might try, if the fact these cloud providers they're making offers to operate on a BYOG model, Microsoft will try saying those cloud providers are appealing to customers who don't have to buy from Microsoft's Windows storefront, because it's most likely they'd buy the game on Steam if they're on PC. And that would probably work as an argument for the CMA to believe.
Hell, they might even dig up the fact Boosteroid already offered COD before the MS deal, albeit without MS's legal consent. Though that would work against Microsoft because the CMA could reference that when MS realized Nvidia were providing access to MS PC games and Microsoft wasn't getting a cut, they promptly removed all support for GeForce NOW. The only reason they are even making these offers to companies like Nvidia is because Microsoft are now getting some kind of payment exchange for allowing these companies to provide cloud access to content they're looking to own.
People are freaking out for nothing.
There are 3 competing markets; Handheld, Traditional consoles and Cloud gaming. Microsoft are carving out the path to own cloud gaming, which isn't an issue. Sony don't freak out with Nintendo selling 100 million handhelds, and vice versa when Sony sell 100 million consoles.
Subscriptions, play anywhere on anything and streaming will be the arena for Cloud gaming and will have little to no impact on Sony, Nintendo or PC. It's a new market.
I don't
quite agree with that, at least when it comes to Sony. Microsoft's play for the subscriptions and cloud gaming markets is to acquire gaming content that has built up its revenue worth and reputation not just in console gaming, but particularly have done so for the past several years through the strength of the PlayStation console brand.
Regulators like the CMA have already expressed that partial foreclosure isn't a concern on the console side of things, they have also expressed that MS making games like RedFall and even Starfield Xbox console-exclusive are of no concern, either. But in absolute terms, those are now two less games/IP for PlayStation, and now Zenimax is one less 3P publisher (of a wide 3P developer suite) Sony can turn to in order to sign exclusivity deals, enter marketing agreements, or even co-fund and co-develop on joint efforts.
If Microsoft's growth strategy in game subscriptions and mobile were truly focused on just those markets, they would not need to purchase 3P publishers who are very well associated and owe much of their brand strength and revenue flow to console gaming for, and in that regard owe a lot to Sony for. So their strategy is already having an impact on Sony because it's constricting the amount of large 3P publishers they can independently work with as a platform holder. Saying this strategy has no impact on them just kind of gives a blanket for them to make other 3P acquisitions that they may say are mainly for "Game Pass and mobile" but just also happen to conveniently remove more big 3P publishers & developers from Sony to be able to work with as a platform holder, be it Take-Two, Capcom, Sega, CDPR, Ubisoft, EA etc.
It's not like Microsoft doesn't have the money to make those purchases, either, and they'll probably at least try and go for at least one more notable 3P publisher (probably a Japanese one). Even if they don't, they are now laying the blueprint that other Big Tech companies can leverage for gaming acquisitions of their own, and that still negatively affects Sony unless they get really cozy with one of those other Big Tech companies (and the only one I can really see that happening with is Google, but Google doesn't seem they would be interested in making gaming acquisitions after Stadia's failure).
I don't buy the idea that the three competing markets you mention don't have an overlap because at least for cloud gaming/subscriptions, the one company pushing for that market is relying on buying publishers & developers with VERY strong history in the traditional console market to do so, so they're effectively trying to kill two birds with one stone (constrict Sony in what 3P partners they can independently work with; attack Apple, Google and gain solidified majority presence in cloud/subscription before many others even have a chance to try). Microsoft are disproving that those markets are mutually exclusive, at least with their strategy, and if other companies with a focus on cloud/subscriptions and presence in mobile go after similar 3P publishers as MS to compete, then that's just even more disproving of the mutual exclusivity theory.
I’m not suggesting Microsoft create their own phone again, I’m suggesting they’ll have like a Samsung phone with their concept of this mobile store front. I think they’ll stick with Xbox consoles at least for this generation but as time movies on that’s ultimately where they want to be.
Oh okay, I see what you are saying now.
Well, in that case I don't know if that really washes away any concerns in regards to this MS strategy for Sony, because Xbox is still in the picture and more importantly still as a traditional console, so it's priced in a way to directly compete with PlayStation. MS have no problem, IMO, with just eating up whatever losses Xbox would take operating in perpetuity as a traditional console if it means they can whittle away at PlayStation and Sony, and Xbox can benefit from these acquisitions in due time.
Especially if, let's say, they do that partnership with Samsung you mention, and push their mobile store with them on a new phone that's maybe "built" for cloud gaming and "acceptable" native gaming of some offerings through the mobile store (if that hypothetical phone is Steam Deck-level powerful it could definitely provide this) and MS & Samsung push the phone heavily with tons of carriers like Verizon, AT&T, Sprint etc.
If that and the mobile storefront blow up into huge successes, and brings in even say $4-5 billion in annual profits (which is probably over 2x more than what Xbox brings in), they won't care about Xbox bringing in meager net profits and probably predict their revenue would increase at least a decent bit from content from acquisitions like Zenimax and ABK. So they'd keep Xbox going because honestly it probably would never get to the XBO's lowest points ever again and the revenue drops the division's seen earlier this year would automatically get reversed just by rolling in ABK's revenue with Xbox's.
So that's why it's still a problem if MS eventually want to "mainly roll" with a mobile solution since it still means they can probably keep Xbox around. Unless they took Xbox off the traditional console business model, of course, and made it something more like a NUC PC gaming brand of devices and not priced to compete with PlayStation (or even Nintendo) as a result. That would require them to do other things though like enable full Windows to run on them and I don't know if MS are comfortable with Xbox owners having the choice to choose Steam over their own Xbox storefront, when they are putting all their 1P games on Steam Day 1.
