It wouldn't be that at all. The numbers could be used towards an appeal for irrationality, but the CMA already concluded that current numbers of the market are not that relevant to their end conclusion. Further, if the CMA asked for these numbers from MS and they didn't provide them, then it won't matter if they're miscalculated as MS were offered the opportunity to provide them
The numbers is no where near the slam dunk you think it is, at all.
EC got the same numbers from MS and reached a different conclusion on the calculations, no?
I find it difficult to believe that they provided different numbers..
UK and EU markets are not the same, so the numbers are likely to be different. The difference also is that the CMA is also looking more to the future.
By that definition I'm a Xcloud user who used it once….for about 5 minutes, 8 months ago.
I would hardly call myself a Xcloud user.
The important part of this is that they had already previously miscalculated and had to make amendments. If the CMA have miscalculated again here, based on their projections of the cloud gaming market, then this will almost certainly be used as ammo to show the CMA have come to their final decision illegally.
I'm assuming EC had access to the same numbers. MS are providing EC remedies for global use, I highly doubt they'd go to the trouble of masking UK numbers knowing they're both already talking.
Cloud services are tied up to broader subscriptions at the moment. That requires a degree of judgment in how to parse out 'cloud marketshare' from those subscription numbers. It's not necessarily a question of a simple math mistake.
Same base numbers, different end estimates depending on your counting or estimation methodology. There was also different info informing estimation - the CMA did its own surveys of GPU users IIRC, their surveys or whatever may have given them different weightings on certain things than the EC's.
The CAT may pick the CMA up on its calculation if there was some very unreasonable error or leap of logic in its methodology, but based on what the CMA says about those marketshares and its relevance to strength assessment, I don't know if the CAT would even bother to remit on the basis of that alone - unless maybe they're also persuaded that the current marketshare figures should be a much larger part of the assessment of strengths in nascent markets than the CMA allowed in its report. The CMA seems to be aware that those numbers are a bone of contention - Microsoft already protested about them prior to the final report, and the CMA rebuffed that - so in their report they've been quite careful to fence their core argument off from those numbers, it seems to me in anticipation of an appeal around those numbers. If it goes back to them on that basis alone they'll just say 'cool, yeah, these are the updated current marketshares in light of the CAT's direction... but as we said, these are of limited value in assessing strengths in a nascent market, so no change in conclusion, bye'.
Last edited:
Playstation hardware sales were up like +500% in the UK for last month. And they're selling more software than last gen
And this is exactly why xCloud needs to be separated from GPU, in its own tier
This is what CAT said on Meta v CMA
So yes it's going to be challenging.
CMA looked at both global and UK, it's not just a geographic difference. They did so because of the fact that their market lacked some of the global competitors, like Luna, at the time.
This really accomplishes nothing. As mentioned before, a price increase (yes separating xcloud from GPU is a price increase) is a rather straightforward example of a SLC. And they can just ignore that move anyway, as it would be seen as a thinly veiled attempt to muddy the data.
One major mistake can be walked away as a simple mistake, especially if it's caught in time. Two major mistakes is a clear admition that politics has infiltrated the process. Because I refuse to believe that they are that incompetent that they'd let multiple major mistakes through unless there was pressure being put in them from above.
Though realistically that first Mistake should have given them, Microsoft+ABK, and all the extra parties an extra month to reorient and focus their views on the remaining SLC.
With near certainty, MS emits, collects, and aggregates very specific metrics regarding their cloud service. Can't run a cloud service otherwise. I find it strange that MS either did not provide these metrics, or the regulatory bodies disregarded them.
OP
OP
The European Games Developer Federation welcomes Commission's Decision To Greenlight Microsoft's Activision Blizzard Acquisition:
EGDF welcomes Commission’s decision to greenlight Microsoft’s ActivisionBlizzard acquisition
15.5.2023 EGDF welcomes the Commission’s decision to greenlight Microsoft’s ActivisionBlizzard acquisition and the legally binding commitments made by Microsoft to secure the continued availa…www.egdf.eu
The CMA considered world wide numbers for their calculations since not all providers participated in the UK yet. Either the EC or the CMA got their calculations wrong.
The parliament session is interesting so far - only 10 minutes in or so. Quite a grilling, in the "hallowed halls of parliament" sense of the word grilling
I didn't say anything about a price increase lol. It could be less money and it still would be a desert. Gamers simply don't care about Cloud gaming right now.
Regarding the cloud numbers, I haven't followed this all the way but was it ever known beyond the big wig at MS complaining after the CMA blocked that they only had 40,000 users or something like that?
I would guess Microsoft would have told them the active numbers seeing the EU response there so mistaking GPU users as all using it is an odd conclusion to make but I don't remember it ever being a known point until after CMA blocked which is strange but maybe a blacked out private detail?
I would guess Microsoft would have told them the active numbers seeing the EU response there so mistaking GPU users as all using it is an odd conclusion to make but I don't remember it ever being a known point until after CMA blocked which is strange but maybe a blacked out private detail?
All this stuff does is just make the CMA look so bad, lol. Like you truly have an axe to grind. So fascinating.
They may have been able to provide detailed numbers on their own users but I suppose the difficulty is that in a marketshare calculation you'd need to have like for like precise numbers from other competitors - which I guess nobody has. MS for sure submitted their own estimates of marketshare...but I'd have to double check if there was any sign of specific concrete user numbers, for how many were using xcloud specifically.
I wonder if not if they could come up in an appeal, although my layperson's guess is that they're looking at how the CMA reviewed the evidence available to them, not admitting new evidence.
That would hurt Microsoft the point of GPU is it gives you everything. All your numbers would cover here are people that downgraded subscriptions and subscribed separately, which would be an incredibly tiny percentage of users , and your'd need to fall back on GPU's MAUs anyways. A metric that the CMA had implicitly claimed is more worthless than truckstop toilet paper
Again, cutting out xcloud from GPU is a price increase. It doesn't matter if xcloud costs a dollar a month. If I need to spend another dollar per a month to get the same benefits I got before the change, that's a price increase.
We don't know if it is a "mistake" though. The point is that CMA may have requested these numbers and not been provided them. If that's the case, along with the CMA already quite clearly stating that current numbers aren't relevant to their end conclusion, it will have little to no impact.
Now if MS -did- provide numbers and the CMA have overridden them with their own calculations, that lends some credibility to a procedural or legal appeal. That said, even if they were to correct that, as CMA have repeatedly stated current numbers aren't relevant to their end concerns, it's unlikely they would change the core SLA concerns so it would just be sent back again.
From everything I can remember, MS were asked to provide xCloud numbers and they didn't provide them, so CMA calculated based on limited numbers from MS. These were included in the provisional & final reports and MS had not sought to clarify them. If that's the case, then it will not aid their appeal
That'd exactly what they did with the Console SLC though. If we are to believe Microsoft, They ignored Microsoft's numbers and used their competitors (Sony's) numbers instead until the very end when they suddenly out of nowhere changed their mind after looking at numbers given by Microsoft.
Price isn't even the importance right now. That isn't the CMA's argument with the Cloud. Can xCloud stand on its own 2 feet? Can it be successful without being attached to Gamepass and Xbox Live Gold. The answer is obviously no. And Microsoft should be able to prove that because the CMA thinks that xCloud is the driving force of GPU when its clearly not. Its the least important aspect of the subscription. Gold and the access to 100+ games are way more important and used than xCloud
Watching that hearing there were some quite political answers to some very direct questions. There wasn't anything of substance to be gleaned from this. In fact the most interesting thing I got from this is that they've investigated supermarkets for colluding on profit margins.
If they have done that, then why haven't they sought to clarify it since? The same numbers were used in the PF & Final report, so I'd have assumed they would have pushed the same as for the Console SLA. Unless they didn't believe the Cloud SLA would stand so didn't focus on them? It just seems odd that if this is the case, why they haven't already pushed against them
That is… a leap. There were some legitimate questions and nudges, mostly about reputation for being fair, but it was hardly indicative of parliaments general view of the decision. Not the mention the fact any committee member has their own view and don't operate as a hive mind
It's a very wishful recap indeed.
I don't now how it is in the uk, but since we talking about relatively small authorities here ;-) the ACM say the dutch CMA, Forbid a merger, take over of the only small other postcompany in the netherland by the privatized old Dutch postal services. But the minister decieded to ignore that, and still give the permit for the the take over.
But I understand that the uk governement doesn't have that power.
But I understand that the uk governement doesn't have that power.
Wow, the Chair of the CMA, Marcus Bokkerink, is an organic growth believer 🥴
He said on the inquiry that there is an absolute difference between creating or investing in a company and acquiring it.
He said on the inquiry that there is an absolute difference between creating or investing in a company and acquiring it.
He and Jim see the same barber too lol
Having seen my fair share of parliamentarians enquires hearings this one has to be one of the most interestingly hostile one between the government of the day and the heads of the department
Usually those sort of waffle answers are reserved for the opposition parties
The UK has relevance because they're MS second biggest market, ahead of the EU. They are able to regulate the merger because it has impacts on the market in the UK
Your hypothetical situation if I'm understanding it, would just mean that the regulator has made a decision, and… an unrelated political entity has given them permission? That's not how the UK market works at all. The power to block/accept a merger is with the regulator, not a random minister. No minister can bypass it without dismantling/changing the way the regulator works
And I think it'd be utterly ridiculous to wish for the politicians of the day to have that power, given how easily they are lobbied/swayed.
If you believe the ms and ABK side of it the CMA went dark 3 weeks before they announced. Around the time they removed the console slc
They coulda have been doing gamesmanship, talking a lot of console to distract from the cloud numbers and never really imparted much of an interest in the numbers
If you go dark what is ms meant to do? Keep sending new numbers without response?
Seems like they wanted the block regardless of the process or the parties cooeperation
They would use any price increase against them. They would use even any negative non-price change as well. Not sure why you think otherwise.
I don't believe for a second that the uk is a bigger market than ALL of the EU member states
Sure by country but certainly not by economic zones
If cloud gaming is to become a thing anytime soon then the deal would help.
Right now the gaming community is skeptical and having titles available to try without any extra money, like with Game Pass, is the best way to encourage growth.
The CMA needs to understand that Game Pass subscribers see cloud gaming as an additive experience. This has been repeatedly stated by Microsoft, so it feels like Xbox is being penalized for trying to grow the market.
Xbox should have a cloud-only tier of game pass and use that as a way to measure actual cloud gaming. There's no way Xbox owns 60-70% of any gaming market, even one that is 1% of gaming.
Right now the gaming community is skeptical and having titles available to try without any extra money, like with Game Pass, is the best way to encourage growth.
The CMA needs to understand that Game Pass subscribers see cloud gaming as an additive experience. This has been repeatedly stated by Microsoft, so it feels like Xbox is being penalized for trying to grow the market.
Xbox should have a cloud-only tier of game pass and use that as a way to measure actual cloud gaming. There's no way Xbox owns 60-70% of any gaming market, even one that is 1% of gaming.
I dont think it is utterly ridiculous given thats how most regulators work across the world. Regulators are also public servants; they are not there to behave as if the public needs to be protected from themselves.
The CMA's unique structure is unique when you understand the fundamentals of how British bureaucracy views itself. As an Indian who knows full well what such a mindset brings, I can tell you it has good and bad things going for it but in general, public servants should be answerable to the public and not to themselves
PS: India only really started developing in 1991 once the power of the bureaucracy was put in check by dismantling what was known as the 'license raj.'
They do have teeth if facts are on their side. If they just continue to function ideologically, they'll never have any teeth. Nor should they.
Ok and xCloud's inability to garner a real market by itself will be used against the CMA, considering thats their whole argument. In that scenario, I like MS chances over the CMA's
If that is the case, and MS tried to correct them and they ignored it, that will absolutely be used against them in appeal. I would imagine that would be a quick win for legality/procedural reasons
Though it'd just mean the correct numbers would be included, but the CMA have already stated current numbers aren't really relevant to their end conclusion, so unlikely to change their stance on the SLA, so likely blocked again by CMA
I think their only real avenue is irrationality based on the Cloud market not being a different market, but even then, it's a high bar to pass to convince the CAT that no one could come to a similar conclusion.
I meant in terms of Gaming, which I'm fairly sure is the case? It's certainly what I've heard most of the time. Either way, it's one of MS biggest markets was the point I was making
I mostly disagree with you. Ministers are highly influenced by public sentiment, business concerns, lobbyists etc. The vast majority of MPs have little to no experience in the areas they are placed to oversee, and as such, their understanding can be vastly different to a designated civil servant with many years & experience in the areas they would be assigned to. Obviously, you'll have exceptions on either side.
But the issue I have, is that wishing for a minister to have absolute say over decisions they may not have any real understanding of is dangerous.
This was bullshit conspiracy nonsense from Kotick and others, at the same time as they alluded to the FTC collaboration. When you make a decision as a public official there is *always* a period of time before the release of the decision where you don't communicate with parties. This literally happens for every single decision we make as public officials.
Three weeks is actually a really short time for that type of behaviour.
View: https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1658408320057630721?t=YqDlvKquAl0ItCrOdiJ-Tw&s=19
Really does feel like the CMA are incompetent and just wanted to stop this no matter what.