NVIDIA GeForce NOW and Other Cloud Gaming Providers Reject CMA Decision on Activision Blizzard Deal

Several cloud gaming service providers have expressed their disapproval of the CMA's block of Microsoft's bid to acquire Activision Blizzard.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Since they signed deals to Microsoft for this stuff I won't be surprised why they would not like this.

[Alexious]

And yet the CMA says cloud providers would lose out from the merger. Clearly they know better than the actual cloud providers.

[Obscure_Observer]

"And yet the CMA says cloud providers would lose out from the merger. Clearly they know better than the actual cloud providers."

Indeed. Nvidia is a big player in the Cloud gaming space and yet CMA believes they´re entitled to dictate how they should run their business.

[RpgSama]

Big player? Nvidia? LOL.

Also Boosteroid, the only other name in that article is a "big player", SURE.

[Andrew336]

@rpgsama GeForce now has been around awhile and has only gotten better.

[Obscure_Observer]

@RpgSama

"Big player? Nvidia? LOL."

FYI, GeForce NOW is available in 113 countries while PS Plus Premium is available in only 30 countries.

At least do you homework before you spell snarky and ignorant remarks.

[RpgSama]

Amount of countries or registered users do not mean anything if those people are not paying.

If in "Latveria" they have 200 "registered" users, that does not add to anything.

[computeSci]

I'm natural in this stance. I'm not taking sides with Sony or Microsoft, but it kind of seems the CMA was grasping for straws at the last minute. Kind of like one of those "see to it" that this deal doesn't go through. If Microsoft appeal follows through, and cloud providers are saying otherwise, how will CMA respond to this?

[kingnick]

They're protecting their own interests too, one of the few things competing companies hate more then each other is ignorant and misinformed regulators as they create an uncertain business environment and businesses are all about minimising risks and maximising profits (traditionally at least, now you have startups that don't generate profits for many years and live off venture capital money but that's drying up and could sink some cloud providers).

[S2Killinit]

Thats the whole point, the cloud providers want to maintain their monopolies, a victory for one is a victory for all of them because it shuts out any would-be competitors.

Good on CMA.

[neutralgamer1992]

ComputeSCI

I am neutral in this but I don’t want any console makers to buy publishers. Ms and Sony combined own 44 studios so they should manage them instead of buying more. Ms bought zenimax and took their games away from PlayStation. That’s the other thing Phil was talking about not taking games away from others and doing just that

FTC
CMA
EU

All should object to this deal. This in no way is a pro gamer acquisitions

When you talk about Nintendo and Sony, we have a ton of respect for them, but we see Amazon and Google as the main competitors going forward," Spencer said. "That's not to disrespect Nintendo and Sony, but the traditional gaming companies are somewhat out of position. I guess they could try to re-create Azure, but we've invested tens of billions of dollars in cloud over the years."

https://www.pcgamer.com/phi...

That’s why Microsoft and Phil shouldn’t talk from both sides of their mouths with their phony statements. How can you me or anyone blame CMA without understanding the process

Some are trying to make out that CMA simply don't understand the market the level of patronising crap they've come out with during this is ridiculous.

The CMA assembles a panel of experts for each major case they investigate aswell as relies on a lot of 2nd and 3rd party research/data and interviews with a lot of experts and are meticulous in their reports

Don’t be surprised if CMA is only the first hammer and up next is EU. CMA don’t come to any conclusion unless they have done their due diligence and appeal process is still handled by CMA themselves

FTC has already objected to this deal so ms have a uphill battle

[TheLigX]

Not true. These are all corporations that want to monopolize a portion of the industry for themselves. All of then have monopolistic dreams. This decision is bad news for any business that wants to consolidate an entire industry.

[derek]

@Alexious, no they said that they wanted to guard against Microsoft growing even more dominant in the cloud space than they already are and stiffle potential new entrants from breaking into the market in the future.

[blackblades]

Right but also others was for there decision and joining Sony going by the other article that came out.

[Obscure_Observer]

CMA didn´t gave a damn about Sony´s claims and concerns. According to them, the merger poses no risks to console market. CMA blocked the deal due concerns about monopolization of the Cloud gaming market, which according to their own data, MS has 60-70% of that market already.

[blackblades]

@obs
No duh i was just stating that others was against the deal like sony that counters the ones that was with ms thats for the dealm

[RauLeCreuset]

@blackblades

All you said was others joined Sony in supporting the decision. Pay no mind to misrepresentations from anyone trying to punch a hole in your argument who shies away from accountability for their own claims. Not that it's relevant to your argument, but, for the record, Sony does not just compete in the console market and was specifically cited in the CMA decision on cloud gaming. Some people weren't paying attention and prematurely thought Jim Ryan was a fool for not taking the 10 year deal and would end up having to beg MS for COD. Had he signed that deal, it would have bolstered Microsoft's arguments pertaining to the cloud market and increased the odds of the deal being approved.

[Crows90]

@obsure

So then you agree with the CMA? If you don't then you're whole comment is pointless. Either they know what they are saying or they don't. If 5hey know then the cloud issues is valid. If they don't, then their comment on the console market is invalid.

[-Foxtrot]

Yeah pretty much

They are expressing this from a business point of view…nothing else

[kingnick]

Because Nvidia and other streamers now know if they gain sufficient marketshare regulators will try to dictate their business in a way they have not done for other sectors of entertainment using the CMA's decision as a precedent.

For a sector in its infancy with a lot going against it like high upfront costs for infrastructure and the variable nature of internet connectivity meaning customer retention will likely be hard to impossible in many regions it's not hard to see why streaming companies oppose regulation especially the type based on what ifs.

What's next? If a streaming provider drops x packets customers get partial refunds? Creating regulations around what if's is a sure fire way to kill an industry that isn't established. Many companies have abandoned streaming services and/or gone bankrupt already.

Many of the smaller streamers likely aren't thrilled at competing with MS and its vast resources in the present and/or future but they may gain some users if more games are available on their platforms as opposed to bleeding out and dying like streaming companies of the past.

It will also discourage other companies from licensing out their IP to cloud providers and investment in porting games to the cloud. Microsoft is probably the only company that has the scale and would have stumped up the funds to port many of ABK's games to the cloud, assuming the merger doesn't go ahead that probably won't happen or at the very least MS won't have much motivation.

If we follow the CMA's reasoning to its logical conclusion, if MS release their games on most/every streaming platform the CMA could make the decision of declaring all users on said platforms whether they play MS's games or not as x% of the total playerbase and use it to block future acquisions/mergers and possibly even try to force divestment, so in effect you are reducing consumer choice and competition because it will be in content creators favour to make their content available on less platforms or run afoul of regulators with theoretical customers that the content creator gains no revenue from.

Counting every Game Pass user as a cloud streamer is incredibly flawed as users aren't paying for cloud streaming standalone and the actual stats will show most Game Pass users do not do the majority of their gaming via cloud streaming. Microsoft has all this data and will be forced to provide it in their appeal (if they haven't already), Sony and other companies should also be forced to provide the same data if they object to the merger.

Personally I do not game in the cloud and I do not see that as being a possibility any time soon given my geographical location yet I'm counted in this data because the CMA clearly doesn't understand the nature of streaming nor its business model.

I think MS acquiring ABK would have positive and negative consequences for the gaming industry.

It could encourage ABK/MS to become lazy and complacent, ABK mostly do decent ports not but who's to say post merger given other developers/publishers seem to be putting unfinished games out and getting away with it and it'd be very hard to police parity since regulators have NFI when it comes to tech. If ABK/MS's games are being ported to many platforms it wouldn't be surprising if the average quality of ports dropped probably moreso for smaller platforms where there isn't as much incentive to release games in a more optimised state.

[Abracadabra]

CMA's reason to block this deal doesn't make much sense. The other big players in gaming, Sony and Nintendo, don't care about Cloud gaming and the CMA blocked the deal because Microsoft would control Cloud gaming? It's not Microsoft's fault that Sony and Nintendo don't care about Cloud gaming...
Basically CMA is blocking the deal because Microsoft would control something that other big players don't care about... Very Strange Indeed.

[cthulhucultist]

Come on MS, its for the best. Those games should remain multi platform (even if when the deal was announced, certain console fans stated that they never liked those games anyway).

MS should use those funds to
1) first manage its studios so that they can release on acceptable rate quality games, no Redfall or Halo fiasco)

2) grow studios in size so that they can develop 2-3 games per studio

3) buy 1-2 studios only that develop franchises that are missing from their catalogue with which they have already worked in the past without taking away huge multiplatform franchises

[SoulWarrior]

Nah this doesn't compute with MS, they just want to put their logo on bought IPs and act like they are gods gift to the industry.

[DOMination-]

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Just because they had 70Bn for ABK doesn't mean they have it for building new studios of growing existing ones.

One was a strategic purchase that would have resulted in big profit over the next few decades. The other is much more risky

Don't disagree with the sentiment BTW. Just don't think it's likely

[343_Guilty_Spark]

They should be punished for investing heavily in cloud technology while other major players ran from it?

It would be one think if games were locked behind Xcloud but how is it bad if it’s on multiple streaming platforms?

[shinoff2183]

I hope you felt this strongly about other big tech mergers.

[darkrider]

Monopoly. Can do whatever they want. With the history of Microsoft on pc. Is scary stuff. But blind followers they were getting ready to do huge party this week and blown on their faces can't accept the reality.

[darkrider]

They can't. They put everything on gp and can't comeback. Without buying publishers Microsoft doesn't have content to put on gp. Just look at the flop of 2022, where indies was the best thing they got... Look at this year. If they didn't get beteshda. It would be a big fat zero blockbuster. But forza. No launch date.

They can't manage the studios they have. Much less another huge publisher...

[kingnick]

ABK's management would likely largely stay in place, hell MS would likely look at ABK's management specially around COD and try to emulate that.

[dumahim]

1 is correct
2 should be to throw around some cash to bring in quality people
the end

[kingnick]

As others have said MS's board would have to approve of acquistions/mergers and ABK have a proven track record of delivering returns for shareholders, there's no way the board would approve a similar level of spending on many smaller, unproven developers and/or publishers.

[JEECE]

Who would have thought that the companies MS bought off in exchange for their public support to regulators would publicly support MS to regulators?

[343_Guilty_Spark]

Proof MSFT paid nvidia?

[JEECE]

https://nvidianews.nvidia.c...

And just to save you the reply, when I said "bought off," I didn't mean Phil Spencer met the CEO of Nvidia under a bridge at 2 a.m. with a bag of cash. I meant they gave them a licensing deal. You already knew this and knew that's what I meant, but I'll just go ahead and clarify to save you the "that isn't evidence of an illegal bribe!" comment.

[shinoff2183]

Jeece told you but you failed to read.

[Sonic1881]

Lol. I were thinking the same thing 😂

[shinoff2183]

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Congrats jeece. Your absolutely right

[kingnick]

A future at the behest of MS is better then no future at all, Nvidia would be fine either way but some of these smaller companies potentially had/have a lot to gain from having access to part or all of the ABK/MS library.

[onisama]

CMA if they were honest: we only care about what benefit sony the most
Sony has always being late in term of services since xbox live was presented thro the 2 monthly free games then to gamepass and finally now cloud gaming, why ignoring biggest compitition in cloud gaming just to support sony benefits

[DarXyde]

...... This only benefits Sony as far as.... Nothing changes. ABK is going to continue spreading their games everywhere. Business as usual, the issue was the threat of that no longer being the case for most people.

Microsoft doesn't get their SECOND MAJOR PUBLISHER PURCHASE, games remain everywhere with certainty and none of this contract stuff, and best of all, Kottick loses his golden parachute. Yes to all of that. Is it safe to assume that you just don't want to pay full price for Call of Duty?

Oh, and to remind you: PlayStation Plus was the first to do monthly free games. Games with Gold followed. You should also know that Sony purchased Gaikai well before this cloud stuff from Microsoft was a thing.

[onisama]

Yeah like we get square enix game spreading everywere too along insomanic and our friendly neighberhood spiderman... Double standard

[SoulWarrior]

"Yes to all of that. Is it safe to assume that you just don't want to pay full price for Call of Duty?"

It's that on top of just wanting a one up over Sony, whereas now all games will remain everywhere for much longer, if not forever but that's not good enough, they don't get to stick it to Sony or get their 'fwee' Call of Duty :(

p.s I've absolutely no idea what he's getting at with that reply to you, insomniac who almost always worked with Sony IPs before being bought, MS turned down the marvel deal, but this is somehow the same as *trying* to buy ABK, complete apples to oranges comparison lol.

[Crows90]

@onisama

Does ratchet and clank do a spiderman cosplay???
Oh NVM you're cherry picking 1 game in their entire catalogue that Sony was given the rights to...i see...makes no sense.

[DarXyde]

Onisama,

So we're picking and choosing what to respond to, it seems. Whatever.

Square's isn't owned by PlayStation. I'm pretty sure that's their decision. At worst, PlayStation is funding the development of these titles, which I can't really take issue with. I reckon Xbox did exactly that with Sunset Overdrive. Again, I don't see that as a problem. If Sony bought Square, I would have a big problem with that. I have never been shy in saying that. Hypothetically, if Square's games were spread everywhere like ABK, the irony is that, in both instances, they perform commercially better on PlayStation than Xbox.

Regarding Insomniac, Microsoft refused Spider-Man. They had a chance and said no. And it went on to be super successful with a smaller successful sequel, and a mainline sequel and Wolverine game on the way.

There is no double standard at work. What are you even talking about?

[GamerRN]

Games with Gold was first...

[shinoff2183]

Welcome back. Didn't miss ya. Where you been on all the articles

[darkrider]

One create huge blockbusters year after year, generation after generation. Another wants to buy to win. Create content, don't steal from the other consoles. Microsoft had generations and money to create the best games ever. Where are they?

[Chevalier]

"Yeah like we get square enix game spreading everywere too along insomanic and our friendly neighberhood spiderman... Double standard"

https://www.google.com/amp/...

Double standard?! Xbox turned down Marvel. Blame Xbox not Playstation. Playstation got offered Marvel games exclusives AFTER Xbox turned it down.

[Aloymetal]

Hey, one upvote from me but it seems it won't be long before you reach that ''magic'' number of 39 downvotes.
No doubt I'd reach that number as well...Let's see. 3, 2, 1...Go!

[azzkikr8502]

To ur point about square Enix, deals have been made but this does not stop Xbox from approaching square to make other games for them which can also be exclusive to them. With abk and Bethesda, theres jack shit anyone can now do to get their games on another platform as they are solely owned by Xbox unless it's via gamepass. Do U see the difference here.??? One is still open and free to deal with, another is closed off from all competing platforms. Can't believe this needs to be explained.

[darksky]

This benefits gamers, not Sony. If MS took control of all the major game titles, then it destroys the competition leaving just them.
That is certainly not good for the consumers who wants choice and the freedom the play games without the requirement to be online only which MS is pushing.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

An actual cloud company wants the deal. People going to say MSFT paid off Nvidia? I’m sure this will be downvoted.

[Crows90]

License deals have already been issued. Money is already involved.

[S2Killinit]

All the monopolies are upset.

[gangsta_red]

Could you please make less sense.

[S2Killinit]

Sure, go MS go, eat up the industry.

[RiseNShine]

I see how MS has butchered developers like Bioware or Rare among many others, CMA pls don't let this merge happen.

[darkrider]

And try to do the same with bungie, but they were smart and left. Microsoft couldnt keep it biggest studio. Microsoft gaming division got the biggest incompentent leading it. It's scary stuff.

[MontyeKristo]

What exactly did MS do to Bioware? 🤦

[Ryuk_2007]

Dude, EA owns Bioware...

[gold_drake]

mkay?
they made their judgment.
you can huff n puff all you want

[darkrider]

Companies in the pocket (deals) of Microsoft saying it's bad. Really. Again. They think we are all stupid. It was blocked. Move along. Stop crying. Create your own content.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

This wasn’t about content it was about Cloud.

[darkrider]

What do you play on cloud? Lolypops?

[darksky]

Putting games like CoD and Bethesda titles on the MS Cloud is what all this is about. If MS had exclusive ownership of such titles then it can simply destroy Sony and any other companies who are entering the market.

Nvidia is crying because it just signed a Cloud deal with MS which could destroy Sony and by extension AMD who supplies the APU's in the consoles.

[Petebloodyonion]

We should not listen to these players and competitors in the Cloud department instead only the opinion of the several anonymous voices should be factored into this.

[GamingSinceForever]

I’m positive the CMA is searching for an F to give. 😂

[343_Guilty_Spark]

The F was given to UK gamers

[GamingSinceForever]

Feel free to elaborate. They were going to get these games anyway but it is MS that brought on this dilemma with their greed.

[Welshy]

How so? Can UK gamers (myself included) not play Activision games on Xbox now that this deal is blocked? Oh wait, Activision is THIRD PARTY and already publishes on every platform...

I don't get this dumb position that gamers are somehow losing out because of this. Even on the "10 year deal" spam MS was doing, there's nothing stopping Activision themselves cutting the exact same deals tomorrow for all the cloud services out there.

[darksky]

Xbot fanboys should look at the bigger picture. The blocking of the deal allows customers more freedom of choice. A monopoly is never good since it forces people in the direction the monopoly wants you to go in. MS wants online only GAAS and that has been the case since the launch of the xbox 360.

[PapaBop]

@Welshy - The cheapskates want the games for free on gamepass.

[darksky]

Nvidia knows the deal will damage Sony and the console market in general which then also damages AMD which is a rival in the gpu market. They have a vested interest in the deal going through.

[anast]

NVIDA is making my eyes roll.

[Unknown_Gamer5794]

I don’t feel for any of these companies either and am glad they’re taking the L too.

[moongrim]

Cry Microsh*t, cry cry cry.

[Knushwood Butt]

All the scum is floating to the surface.

[Ra3030]

Wasn't the deal "10yrs for Xbox games" not just Call of Duty?....I wonder if we'll see Redfall on Nintendo and these no name streaming services next week.....I already know the answer lol. But White Boy Brad did say these deals were " binding contracts" so when do they begin? Now before someone's says "the ABK deal has to be approved".... that's fair but the Government of Japan has already approved this deal. So what is Microsoft waiting for.

[StarkR3ality]

The way Actiblizz are going, it's clear that people are getting burnt out on their IP, WoW isn't what it was, playerbase is shrinking for CoD and overwatch 2 was an update disguised in a new game wrapping that fans despised. Maybe with the money of Microsoft they could get get to their best but evidence of their other studios isn't there to support that.

Instead Xbox should focus on getting their existing studios in order, probably hire a completely new management team including getting rid of Phil Spencer and Co. Investing that 69 billion into new IP and fresh talent as it's clear whoever is working on their games minus a couple of studios just don't have the love for their craft anymore.

That won't happen of course because that's a big risk and that's bad for business, but you have incorporate risk in video games to keep things fresh, there's too much samey shit out these days that gaming is a bit souless at the moment.

Xbox has some of the greatest IP in history of gaming, during the 360 era (a while ago I know) Xbox's exclusives always outsold PlayStation's by a significant amount. If they can hire the people to make those amazing games for those IP and get the right team to manage them, Xbox in my opinion would be the better platform due to the variety of IP they own.

FPS - Halo/Perfect Dark/Doom

3PS - Gears/Indiana Jones (I assume indi would be 3rd person)

RPG - Fallout/Elder scrolls/Fable and whatever obsidian is up to

Racing - Forza Motorsport/Horizon

Action adventure - HellBlade

Horror - They own Tango gameworks FFS.

Give these IP to playstation and by god I can only imagine what they would come up with. The fact they have these and more IP in such variety and still manage to fuck up year in year out is baffling. It's a damn shame and a waste.

[Killa78]

Nvidia dislike the CMA anyway so this means nothing.

[kryteris]

All this energy and resources, imagine creating a competitive product to COD instead. Oh the good ole days at least when they gave the illusion of trying.

[PhillyDonJawn]

For Sony it's about COD, for MS it's about adding to GP and mobile. For CMA it's about Cloud dominance. All 3 have different concerns so it sound like there's an easy solution to please all 3 don't it?

[kingnick]

Neither MS nor Sony wanted to tick off ABK especially when they had certain rights for COD in the PS3/Xbox360 and PS4/XO generations respectively.

None of the big first party shooters MS and Sony created were COD clones/killers, Halo and Killzone are very different in terms of gameplay to COD.

[CPTN MITCHELL]

They signed a deal without Ms owning Activision 😂😂 they thought it wouldn't be blocked