The UK Competition and Markets Authority has defended its decision to block Microsoft's $68.7bn Activision Blizzard buy…
Not really a brilliant defence from the CMA to some of the grilling. Slightly Partisan highlights here if you don't want to read/watch the whole thing; https://twitter.com/FOSSpat...
Sarah Cardell sounded cornered and terrified. That twitter reaction/response to the European Commission just made things even worst. Now UK´s MPs are not sure whether CMA rushed such important decision, its impacts on international scenario and CMA´s impartiality surrounding the Khan-Cardell duo conspiracy to block the deal. Things definitely not looking great for her and hers career and reputation.
So now we are political commentators as well? LOL.
The outrage isn’t because they blocked it the PM could had said something at the blocking time but didn’t but now that the EU approved it and in the background he’s been made fun of for not getting that lobbyist monetary case he’s outraged 🤦🏿
Obscure, you talk complete bollocks 100 percent of the time, how about you give it a rest when in comes to UK politics and regulation, you haven't got the 1st clue. On topic, as a civil servant myself, it comes as no surprise to hear that MPs want to involve themselves in something they have no clue about and it will based on nothing more than lobbying from interested parties. What can MPs in the space of a few hours at an enquiry, contribute to the decision making process undertaken by the CMA who reached their conclusion based on a fair, thorough and unbiased action assessment based on fact and evidence? We have seen this government overreach, change the rules and even alter/remove long established laws and public protections in the UK, just to get outcomes they want.
That's what I said this morning on another article. We are going to see some UK Prime Minister type early exits from the CMA. It was obvious competition wasn't the motivation. If it was, all of Sony's exclusivity deals would have gotten canceled along with Microsoft's acquisition block. To allow a company in a dominant position to keep advantages through paid exclusivity is clearly not a level playing field. Microsoft's answer to that would be acquisitions. If you aren't going to allow those then Sony can't keep its exclusivity deals. That is basic logic. There's no way the people of the CMA came to their conclusions if a level playing field was their objective.
Yeah definitely it’s crazy that the prime minister was basically telling her indirectly that they should have approved it and blocking it was a mistake. I do feel that it will pass seeing parliaments reaction the blocking. I’m sure the CMA will feel the pressure. That’s politics money talks. If the EU who seems to have it out for big tech Judging by the lawsuits and probes it’s conducting approved it you know the CMA is being unreasonable.
MS paid MP’s can suck it.
This reads of corruption especially after those articles about MS lobbying the EU. MS is one of the most corrupt companies in the world. People who stick up for them have serious mental deficiencies.
Lmao FOSSPatents has been a fanboy lately. Just check his other tweets
How will the UK have its own Silicon Valley when it will all be American businesses? Sounds more like just Americans expanding based on their own desires and needs in that region, not the UK growing their own technology growth center. There's a ton of arrogance by Microsoft and Kotick here in regards that UK needs them to be Silicon Valley when the fact is they would not be creating anything of the sort. At any time, Microsoft and Activision can pull out and move their business to the next country they need to put a foothold into or will agree to their demands. That's not a security for the UK, that's just what we have in the U.S., businesses with tons of money running wherever they want and taking tax credits and benefits because they bring jobs when in reality they take money from the people while giving some jobs that don't have longevity or bring increased funds to UK other than jobs that the UK itself could create to compete against these same companies.
Christopher Look no further then all the manufacturing jobs that pulled out of the u.s. over the last 20 30 years. It does happen.
Manufacturing, customer service, and even IT are heavily outsourced. Heck, they'll even hire Visa workers for a lot less, have the original employees train them, and then replace them with the newer and lower-wage staff. All while politicians who are paid for by these companies to allow them to do what they do go out and complain about jobs leaving the country.
Just so people understand, Silicon Valley is where people went and built businesses from the ground up. That's what the UK wants. What Microsoft is saying they will do is the equivalent of just having a local branch of their business, not creating new businesses from the ground up or even investing in such a thing within UK as their goals are to make money off of the work actual businesses of UK by selling their services to them. This is the exact reason the CMA says no to the deal. They understand that Microsoft is setting itself up in the UK to make money by selling its services to others or making money off of its services by forcing its game profits to go fully to Microsoft and not to those businesses that built their own services and storefronts. Microsoft is saying they will leach off the work of others, not grow them. Any leach likes a fat food source, but it will also abandon it when it's dead and they kind find a new food source.
I don't think its fair to say Microsoft is looking to leech off of cloud providers, who else capable is really trying to grow the Cloud market at all? Sony bought two big providers, then quietly shuttered them to the side and focused on other things. Google tried, then gave up. Amazon has just launched Luna with minimal effort and fanfare. Everyone else in the market seems to support the deal and sees it only as a benefit to their cloud services potential. Just seems a very small slice of gaming that is being used as an irrational excuse because they just wanted to say no to show they are being tough and mean business etc etc
***I don't think its fair to say Microsoft is looking to leech off of cloud providers, who else capable is really trying to grow the Cloud market at all?*** They literally made 10-year deals with cloud streaming companies that allowed them to have their games on the service but would require all of the profits to go to Microsoft. If that's not leeching, I don't know what is. ***Everyone else in the market seems to support the deal *** That doesn't make it competitive or beneficial for anyone in the long run nor does it say that the UK will be able to create their own Silicon Valley when they're not creating businesses, only supporting MIcrosoft's goals. ***Sony bought two big providers, then quietly shuttered them to the side and focused on other things. Google tried, then gave up. Amazon has just launched Luna with minimal effort and fanfare.*** 1. Sony sheltered streaming PS3 games? That's news to me. 2. That's because, as the CMA mentioned, the cloud business is a long-term item that will set Microsoft up for anti-competitive means within 10 years. Why others got out of it now because they didn't want to compete with Microsoft knowing they don't have the same standing as Microsoft which literally builds the backbone of such technology. Their biggest competitor is Amazon, who haven't dropped out and are likely building up their business backbone as well, but not at the level that Microsoft is as it relates to video game streaming or the like. ***Just seems a very small slice of gaming that is being used as an irrational excuse because they just wanted to say no to show they are being tough and mean business etc etc*** Seems like they're very forward-thinking and utilizing existing methods that Microsoft has used in OS, Productivity Software, Networking Services and Hardware, and more to capture and maintain tight control and limit the ability for new businesses to compete with in the past.
Are you serious Christopher, it is not leeching, you are looking at it from a narrow view. Competing Cloud services are relatively small, right? Currently, MS is the leader in cloud services, right? What will the other Cloud services have to pay for A/B games on their storefronts and for their consumer to play them there? Zero, zilch, free of charge, nothing. Do you know what MS had to pay? 69billion Jack, they absolutely need to recoup...now let's look at some of the benefits to the other companies that will be leeching off MS. What do they gain? So a Cloud service company with...let's be generous, a 5% Market share now has Some mega blockbusters on their service COD, Diablo, Overwatch, ect..that can potentially do the one thing all Sub/cloud service providers want...engagement, people drawn to their platform, because remember they are not selling individual games in most cases, they are a platform as a service, that kind of draw power at no cost to them is a steal. You have to understand, that is why they accepted the deals, what makes you think you know better than the companies that signed? Nintendo, Nvidia, and all these cloud companies, these people are business giants, yet you presume to know better, how bold of you. Your opinion of it being leeching is silly, if anything, the way smaller baby cloud services would be leeching off of MS gigantic name IPs...all for free..tons of draw to a lesser know platform, crossplay with a way larger userbase, user engagement for their platform, possibly cheaper than MS service making it more attractive to some...ect...ALL FOR FREE.
"This is the exact reason the CMA says no to the deal. They understand that Microsoft is setting itself up in the UK to make money by selling its services to others or making money off of its services by forcing its game profits to go fully to Microsoft and not to those businesses that built their own services and storefronts." And that's basically why the CMA is facing criticism since it's not the role of the CMA to protect jobs or local industries but the consumer's interests. If not, all countries would become close markets like China. A case in point is how Trump was angry with regulations like FTC because they were not doing his AMERICA 1st agenda. Also don't you find it funny that CMA prevents a deal on a lot of "IF" regarding the possibility of Cloud gaming but had nothing to say regarding the same-size merger of WarnerBrother Discovery that just recently happened? Especially when WB established that future Discovery content would be EXCLUSIVE to the new MAX service current Discovery members would have to upgrade to the new MAX service means paying more money for content they didn't ask for. Remember this is not "IF" It's "NOW" and it's called a precedent.
***And that's basically why the CMA is facing criticism since it's not the role of the CMA to protect jobs or local industries but the consumer's interests. If not, all countries would become close markets like China. *** Literally is their job to regulate anti-competitive behaviors. That is in the interest of consumers. Just because some people want it doesn't mean it's in the best interest of the industry. Anti-competitive regulations exist to ensure competition at various levels in order to improve industry expansion and consumer options. ***Competing Cloud services are relatively small, right? Currently, MS is the leader in cloud services, right? *** You're saying the quiet part out loud. ***What will the other Cloud services have to pay for A/B games on their storefronts and for their consumer to play them there? Zero, zilch, free of charge, nothing. Do you know what MS had to pay? 69billion*** This is such horrendous logic and backwards thinking. Microsoft is investing in the power of what they are buying and cutting out any middleman on how to utilize them. They wouldn't but it if it wouldn't let them to control an area of the market that is major and/or profit from it in a few years. You're trying to act like steam shouldn't charge Microsoft any fees because they have money to buy such a massive publisher? Ridiculous.
See, I see what you are saying as Backwards, and based in a full hypotheticals.The facts are, These companies signed the deal. I will pose the questions again, why did all the companies partner with them for the 10 year deal? Do you think they didn't read the contracts, do you believe they don't know what they stand to gain? Do you think they are trying to only help MS and not themselves. Lastly, what make you think you know better than these Million $$ and billion $$ companies?
***why did all the companies partner with them for the 10 year deal?*** Because Microsoft holds the cards and they have no choice in losing out on a library of games that others they are actually competing with will have if they don't all the while Microsoft doesn't care because they will make all the profit from the work of any of those streaming companies without any of the costs of the platform. Literally one of the signs of anti-competitive practices when the only competition is between those you have a stranglehold over. ***Lastly, what make you think you know better than these Million $$ and billion $$ companies? *** I know what's best for consumers because I'm not trying to make a profit off of them. You on the other hand think these rich folk who only see you for your profit making potential for them have your best interest at heart? Insane and just what they want you to think. Congrats.
"Child labor laws are also there opposite of free trade. Guess we just let rich people do whatever the heck they want, screw the common person." Yet you don't seems to have a problem with owning a console assembled in China. . "And the CMA discuss the issue of anti-competitive practice, stop trying to make it about something via gaslighting." I agree but none of them applied to reasons you gave in your initial post discussing MS and ABK behaviours or the Silicon valley reason. Perhaps you can tell us where you see one of your reason as a responsibility of the CMA . https://www.gov.uk/governme... You can check the "our responsibilities" section I have found nothing that apply to your claims.
Pete, I've consistently made the discussion about CMA on their ruling on the grounds of anti -competition. My remarks about Silicon Valley and the UK are in response to Microsoft and Kotick, from the article, trying to make it look like they're the solution to that when what they want isn't a Silicon Valley but a Microsoft Service Providing Valley. Don't try and twist two arguments into one. Follow the line of discussion. Pay attention. Don't just chatter on as if the CMA is the only discussion in the articles when Microsoft and Bobby made it about the possibility of UK growing and expanding UK technology businesses. They mentioned this, not the CMA.
"Because Microsoft holds the cards and they have no choice in losing out on a library of games that others they are actually competing with will have" This is part of why your argument falls apart, MS does not hold all the cards, they do not own A/B. If the companies felt it wasn't a good move, or it would stifle them even more and they would get a raw deal, then they could have easily gone the route of Sony and opposed the deal. Your point would make more sense for them to stop MS from succeeding with the acquisition. Instead, we get this: "GeForce NOW and other cloud gaming providers stand to gain an even deeper catalog of games if Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision is completed. We see this as a benefit to cloud gaming and hope for a positive resolution." 3:00 PM · Apr 27, 2023 "Boosteroid team and our users disagree with the CMA's decision against Microsoft's purchase of Activision. Our position on this issue is in line with that of Microsoft's president, Brad Smith. We hope for a quick resolution to this question." https://www.pcmag.com/news/... "I know what's best for consumers because I'm not trying to make a profit off of them." WTF? Are you serious with that comment? So you know better than ALL the companies and ALL the gamers who want the deal to go through? I think at this point you are just talking to talk, with no solid foundation. "You on the other hand think these rich folk who only see you for your profit making potential for them have your best interest at heart? Insane and just what they want you to think. Congrats." Wow so off base, I don't give a rats Ass about MS and big corps profits, I've been saying this forever, I care about myself as a consumer, which you so gladly took the liberty of saying you care about, you care about one side of consumers, I don't have to say which side as you already know and speak from that angle. You dismiss all the consumers of, Nvidia, Nintendo, MS, Steam, Booteriod, and the other companies which have signed the deal. Let me guess, none of these companies, not one gives a crap about their customers, but as an "unbiased" customer, you care about all of them and us.. congrats to you.
***Your point would make more sense for them to stop MS from succeeding with the acquisition. *** You really need to understand how contracts work. First, the contract has a requirement that the deal would go through. If it didn't, obvious the deal would be null and void. Second, these companies have no pull with CMA other than what was asked. They are hedging their bets any way they can to progress. Third, many of these companies are building like many startups in the U.S. The goal isn't necessarily to last but to become big enough that someone will buy them and the investors will get golden parachutes. This is similar to being an employee and having to do what the employer says if you want to get paid. There's really no choice because the employer holds that power. In this case, that's Microsoft. You've already recognized they're the biggest player, they have the biggest network system for cloud streaming, and most businesses rely on them already for services and now they will rely on them for game catalogues.
That’s what The UK does. We have Papa Johns in our yuppie villages now. We make nothing and vote for conservative politicians every cycle. We are a self-defeating-idiot-people.
What you're describing are protectionist measures and the opposite of free trade. You can't expect others to abide by the rule of free trade when you want to export your product and expertise but denied them when they want to import them to your place. Just like MS, and Activision there's nothing preventing any of the companies established in the UK to move to another country nor having the same products made by a UK entity would = a win in terms of quality or price for the consumer. Also, the CMA's role isn't about protecting local jobs but consumers' interests.
Child labor laws are also there opposite of free trade. Guess we just let rich people do whatever the heck they want, screw the common person. And the CMA discuss the issue of anti-competitive practice, stop trying to make it about something via gaslighting.
The UK has had plenty of time to create its own Silicon Valley. Isolationist and protectionist policies aren’t suddenly make their situation any better. The fact of the matter is the CMA has shown repeatedly it has no grasp of the gaming or cloud industry.
This whole thing is bad for gaming, now we're on the doorstep of having Microsoft control gaming the way they control PC operating systems which is bad enough but now we have to worry about them actually being able to force the gaming industry towards crappy streaming. Not to mention their ability to steamroll PlayStation the only real thing keeping them in check. And of course, Microsoft did what every big American cooperation does they looked for some people whose job depends on elections and gave them bribes to support their position. It's really sad that anyone supports Microsoft when there is no way this makes anything better for anyone including xbox fans... where the only thing they can hope to gain winning some kind of "console war" and are completely unable to look at the long-term or bigger picture here. Yay, we destroyed PlayStation for the 100 million people who have their whole lives worth of gaming on the platform, hurray we did it, we sure made those people's lives worse!