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.

Read Full Story >>
XiNatsuDragnel398d ago

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

Alexious398d ago

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

Obscure_Observer398d ago

"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.

RpgSama398d ago

Big player? Nvidia? LOL.

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

Andrew336398d ago (Edited 398d ago )

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

Obscure_Observer398d ago


"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.

RpgSama398d ago (Edited 398d ago )

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.

computeSci398d ago

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?

kingnick398d ago

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).

S2Killinit398d ago

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.

neutralgamer1992398d ago


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


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."


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

TheLigX398d ago

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.

derek397d ago (Edited 397d ago )

@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.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 397d ago
blackblades398d ago

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

Obscure_Observer398d ago (Edited 398d ago )

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.

blackblades398d ago

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

RauLeCreuset398d ago


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.

Crows90398d ago


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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 398d ago
-Foxtrot398d ago

Yeah pretty much

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

kingnick398d ago

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.

Abracadabra397d ago

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.

397d ago
+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 397d ago
cthulhucultist398d ago

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

SoulWarrior398d ago

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-398d ago

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_Spark398d ago

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?

shinoff2183398d ago

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

darkrider398d ago

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.

darkrider398d ago

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...