Fair point. If you can pay monthly for a sub or cloud service, users could skip spending $70 or even buying a high-end PC/console entirely. Streaming/cloud has the potential to disrupt a lot of the high-end part of the industry.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Fair point. If you can pay monthly for a sub or cloud service, users could skip spending $70 or even buying a high-end PC/console entirely. Streaming/cloud has the potential to disrupt a lot of the high-end part of the industry.
And, ironically, Minecraft runs better on the PS5 than the XSX. MS really needs to to start implementing parity clauses ...
How could they possibly uphold them if the deal gets blocked? MS can't make AB give these companies CoD.
What a bizarre timing for this article lol. We're a month away, potentially less if they release their findings beforehand, from knowing what the result of this deal will be.
The Microsoft Activision circus needs to be over and done with
Microsoft and Sony’s squabbling over Call of Duty is an embarrassmentwww.polygon.com
Polygon going all in on this opinion piece and saying that they think this would be "a net positive for the gaming community" and to just get it done.
I think different industries measure time in different scales. 10 years is super long for tech because of how fast it develops and changes. 10 years would be short if we're talking about something like film or books where things are quite a bit more static and slow to change.
I imagine the CMA will be aware of that, even for the areas i've disagreed they've shown they understand the industry and technology. I imagine Microsoft would also mention this during their discussions.
That about sums it up. Regulators goal shouldn't be there to kill innovation. Locking into specific terms for 10 years is more than fair, beyond that companies should be able to renegotiate and not be beholden to terms that may no longer make any sense 10+ years from now. Who knows what the market will look like then?
Suggesting 30 years with a straight face sure is a choice.
They came up with some round about reasoning (i.e. regurgitated Sony's reasoning) for why Minecraft doesn't count… despite it being consistently one of the largest GaaS on the planet unlike any of Bethesda's offerings.
I feel like with another cloud commitment today that a pattern is forming. All these commitments MS is making are primarily cloud. Even in the proposed Sony terms there seems to be some year discrepancies between cloud vs native commitment. The Nintendo commitment seems more realistically a cloud commitment although I can be wrong.
Why is this not being highlighted more? To me all these promises are meaningless unless the platforms that can support it are getting native versions. If only the Xbox ecosystem gets COD Native none of this moves the needle.
It's simply PR to say "we are bringing COD to more platforms."
Why is this not being highlighted more? To me all these promises are meaningless unless the platforms that can support it are getting native versions. If only the Xbox ecosystem gets COD Native none of this moves the needle.
It's simply PR to say "we are bringing COD to more platforms."
Well, one of the two SLC concerns the CMA brought up were cloud. So cloud deals are still relevant.
There isn't any other console companies to form partnerships with (outside of Sony). There's some storefronts left on PC (epic, GOG, perhaps others) and cloud providers to make deals with. But that's it. MS is going to have Call of Duty available in almost as many places as Doom is.
and MS is offering native to all hardware vendors. btw.
Nintendo is native CoD editions. Per Microsofts filing. At least for stuff like future titles and Warzone. Maybe they backport via cloud on Switch.
It reeks of the kind of deal-making that we all used to employ as kids. "Mom if you take me to disneyland i will never ask you for anything EVER AGAIN." or "bro if you let me have the last oreo I will be your slave for a year!!!"
Its the kind of over the top, extreme promise that is highly conditional and tinged with desperation. It invites and encourages even closer skepticism and scrutiny IMO.
If the concern that MS wants to allay is the appearances of anti-competitive activity due to their history and market position, they can start the robin hood act today—or 10 years ago—if they wanted. They don't.
I think it's mostly theater, so MS can roll out a bigger number of harmed gamers when the deal fails: "SONY (and the CMA) has ROBBED a zillion gajillion gamers of cheap and free access to the best games on planet Earth."
MS arguments may not be effective with regulators but they're absolutely making hay in the court of public opinion.
Shouldn't we want companies to make deals in order to get what they want passed? Microsoft does not want unions, but thanks to wanting this deal, they've remained neutral on them. Isn't that a good thing?
people keep saying this, but Amazon Luna does have deals with publishers to allow people to play games they own.
for example, if you have a Ubisoft account, you can stream games you own
True. I remember when I was a kid and wanted an Oreo and offered to fully fund a neutral, third party to ensure I *checks notes* could be a.. slave for a year.. all while regulatory bodies around the world observed from a distance in the event that I broke my agreement. What a weird comparison to make.
See and that's fine but it's a double edged sword because it gives credence to Sony's parity argument. Cloud would be a significant downgrade to existing PlayStation customers.
I think both sides here have a valid argument because of all of this and I am interested to see what regulators ultimately think of it.
Microsoft announces partnership with cloud gaming provider Boosteroid to bring more games to more players around the world
/PRNewswire/ -- Microsoft Corp. and Boosteroid on Tuesday announced a 10-year agreement to bring Xbox PC games to Boosteroid's cloud gaming platform....www.prnewswire.com
More access = good
If the deal passes Microsoft will be contractually obligated to put a native version on the current Switch based on their statements. It's really not a may or may not scenario.
Depends on the company, the deals, and what they are angling for.
I'm not a fan of the ABK deal nor these little side agreements. The latter especially has a tinge of "you exist because I allow it…" reaper speech. It's massive leverage.
Microsoft is not forcing cloud on platform holders. The Nintendo deal says native and PlayStation would continue to be. For a company that has released Minecraft spinoffs on every platform and continues to support it (releasing it on Switch), why do people think Microsoft has a deep down master plan to fuck over PlayStation? I think they just want COD on Game Pass and with a marketing deal.
Leverage is a tool in business and regulators should use it. Throwing out any good because "you don't like how it feels" is silly.
I agree on the regulators part. And i would not be surprised if some regulators are viewing this hailstorm of partnerships and announcements through that exact perspective: what MS is actually signaling (unintentionally, i think) is that they are willing to make large portions of the industry substantially dependent on them.
How is committing to releasing stuff on more platforms making the industry dependent on them?
Microsoft games are essential to the industry but won't be good enough to get out of third place will be a take one day.
I don't exactly see how releasing on all types of platforms under contract makes anyone dependent on MS either. Unless they're trying to project further than 10 years but we could also argue that if the expanded access is successful wouldn't that make keeping it multi platform even more important to its success?
OP
OP
These were the third party cloud gaming providers mentioned by the CMA in the provisional findings:
- NVIDIA GFN
- Facebook Gaming
- Google Stadia
- PlayStation Now
- Nintendo Switch Online
- Shadow
- Amazon Luna
- Antstream Arcade
- Boosteroid
- Utomik
- Blacknut
- Gamestream
- Wiztivi
Maybe they'll try to get an agreement with Facebook and Amazon too? In any case, Facebook Gaming + Nintendo Switch Online were excluded because they were considered materially different to xCloud.
Whatever the case may be, pushing up the relevant customer benefits (RCB) numbers is probably one of the best strategies right now to try to make the behavioural remedies work for the CMA.
We'll see if that's enough.
- NVIDIA GFN
- Facebook Gaming
- Google Stadia
- PlayStation Now
- Nintendo Switch Online
- Shadow
- Amazon Luna
- Antstream Arcade
- Boosteroid
- Utomik
- Blacknut
- Gamestream
- Wiztivi
Maybe they'll try to get an agreement with Facebook and Amazon too? In any case, Facebook Gaming + Nintendo Switch Online were excluded because they were considered materially different to xCloud.
Whatever the case may be, pushing up the relevant customer benefits (RCB) numbers is probably one of the best strategies right now to try to make the behavioural remedies work for the CMA.
We'll see if that's enough.
Last edited:
Didn't Sony (by acquiring) have one of the first cloud gaming services?
- I don't believe they have to make a deal with Shadow because Shadow allows you to play all your PC games no matter what (Since it's literally just a PC in the cloud).
- Stadia?
- PlayStation Now would probably be apart of any PS+ deal.
- They'll probably make an agreement with Luna.
actually 2 of the first cloud services
Gaikai and OnLive (well, onlive's patents)
So five of the eight are off the table at this point
2 by offers or contract (ps, Nvidia)
2 excluded (FB, Nintendo)
1 defunct (Stadia)
I would suspect others will sign and at minimum Luna will be made an extremely public offer.
At this point, I'm not sure how much evidence there is to support any other theory besides "Sony bought them to stifle an up-and-coming/competing business model" given how things played out.
Boosteroid is mentioned in the Provisional Findings at this part as a lesser-known provider:
View: https://imgur.com/a/lSEGxLB
OP
OP
Wasn't xCloud announced for Meta Quest last year?
Totally right! My mistake then (searching from and iPad never a good idea xD).
I'll update the post and add the rest. Thanks! :)
Last edited:
in that case it wouldn't count because it's acting like a thoroughfare - you're still accessing xcloud itself
Yeah it was. I thought the CMA was wanting Microsoft to do deals with other services, however if xCloud counts, I guess that's easier.
There's considerable challenge to striking a deal with bespoke providers like Amazon Luna or Stadia (RIP) and maybe Facebook Gaming (ive literally never heard of it, only their livestreaming) as these have targeted platforms similar to a native Nintendo rather than running VMs or just streaming gameplay on an arbitrary PC to a device. It's doable but would require way more dedicated resourced for porting without much payoff. Nintendo versions makes sense bc theres a huge market to tap in to. Making versions for Luna may require "parity" and be complicated for just a couple hundred thousand users vs saying "ok you can stream the pc versions like nvidia".
Im doubtful luna will get anything
Im doubtful luna will get anything
Luna uses Windows! Microsoft would probably just have to make the Xbox app accessible through Luna (which they're already doing with GFN).
Ubisoft Connect works with Luna.
They're addressing the CMA's most problematic SLC which is barrier to entry in cloud gaming.
To secure a 69 billion dollar deal? Yeah. Would you expect them not to?
