Last reply you'll get from me because I'm quite frankly tired of your nonsense.
But again, it's a separate unrelated business that only have in common that they use servers.
How is it a separate unrelated business when Xbox is a division (not a subsidiary) and the only thing those two business divisions can have in common is servers? Based on MAU alone, we're talking about millions of users moving from Google Cloud / AWS into Azure, and this doesn't even account for the future cloud gaming offering.
It's like to say MS has an advantage in gaming because they have Excel and Excel runs in computers, like the game engines and tools that devs use to make games, and that some devs use Excel. That doesn't mean a shit for gamedevs, because whatever spreadsheet app they use or where do they have their servers stored, or to have another division in that business doesn't matter at all.
False equivalence and reduction ad absurdum? You really need to go back to school. No, Microsoft has an advantage because they already own >60% of the cloud gaming market, and have the second biggest cloud services provider in the world. Acquiring ABK will not only further strength their cloud gaming marketshare, but do the same for their cloud service marketshare.
It would be like to say the same for Sony because they also make tvs and videogames use tvs to be played.
False equivalence. Even if it was a fair comparison, Sony is not in a leading market position for TV sales globally. In fact, they are 5th in a market dominated by Samsung.
Slipping sales on account of inflation and a decline in demand didn’t dent Samsung’s performance
english.hani.co.kr
Offering server storage and an app (website) to manage them with some extra related services to other companies who may store them the servers of their website, app etc has nothing to do with cloud gaming. In this case it only saves MS a few bucks of renting space for storing the server racks, but they still have to pay which is by far the biggest related costs: its internet bandwith and electricity + maintenance.
The costs are irrelevant. Moving over 100 million users to their cloud offering + controlling even more of a market where they are already in a dominant position is the problem.
Here, page 4.
We have absolutely no data showing that Xcloud has more worldwide users than PS cloud gaming, we only know that PS Plus has twice the subs than GP and that worldwide Sony gaming subs generate way more money than MS gaming subs.
The CMA has that data. Here, I'll help you if you have difficulties finding page 4 in the article above.
UK is a very small portion of the gaming market and console market, or even for Xbox and PS, so it isn't relevant to measure worldwide performance.
Irrelevant. The UK makes decisions based on their market. You're the only one that keeps talking about worldwide, not me.
Cloud gaming started 20 years ago and its first 'important'/'relevant' player Gaikai for the modern cloud gaming -who filled some of the patents being used today, now owned by Sony- started in the late 2000s.
During decades the market didn't highlly scaled because there are some reasons that prevent it from scaling, that even if slightly improved since then and will continue slightly improving the main reasons will continue avoiding it to scale and become mainstream worldwide during at least a decade or two: the need of a technology available worldwide that allows enough speed and low enough latency plus also not blocked by internet data caps. Even the 6G experiments we're seeing, which will take a lot of time to have a great worldwide coverage (4G still doesn't have it).
All of this is irrelevant. Market trends expect the cloud gaming market to almost exponentially grow in the next 10 years, and market based decisions are made from those assumptions. It's a
nascent market - You should look up what it means.
So cloud gaming will continue being an irrelevant market as is today, at least for decades. So it's very hard to justify being corcerned about it.
That's not what market analysis says, and your opinion is irrelevant.
And as I mentioned ABK only has a 4% market share, so its acquisition shoudn't be a concern regarding consolidation, specially when who buys it has only single digit market share and isn't at all a market leader in the main markets (mobile, PC and console), in fact in the platform more attached to cloud gaming it's the last one in the race and around 90% of the active players of their direct competitor don't buy the game that is causing the concern.
This is all irrelevant. The CMA dropped their concerns about a console SLC. Microsoft owning 60 to 70% of the cloud gaming market + the 2nd biggest cloud services is the problem. They are a market leader in a nascent market + they would be able to move hundreds of millions of users to their cloud services provider.
I suggest you to at least go to wikipedia to know what these terms means, because I see you don't know it.
I do know what they mean, but it seems to me like you don't. Go back to school.
Yes, they are almost as irrelevant as the Azure market position when talking about gaming or cloud gaming.
Are you so narrow minded that you think a company being the leader on a nascent market that involves CLOUD SERVERS, while being the second biggest in a market that also involves CLOUD SERVERS, is the same as comparing Teslas to Bananas? You really are hopeless.
Yep, you can read a preview on Google Books: "Halo: The Official Cookbook - Recipes from across the galaxy". One of the most interesting Xbox releases combined with the Xbox nail polish, the Xbox Series X fridge, and Xbox Series S toaster. It would be interesting to sell them together in a bundle.
You seem to be very well acquainted with whatever Xbox bullshit is out there. Must be in your nightstand, right next to the phil spencer dildo.