EU Official Says CMA Overstated Microsoft's Share in Cloud Gaming Market

An EU official went on record to say that the UK's CMA has overstated Microsoft's supposed cloud gaming market share (60-70%).

Read Full Story >>
Sonyslave3131d ago

Yup like how Ms have 60% or 70% market with 25mil and Nividia only have 20% when they have 20mil user.

🤣🤣 CMA not good with math lol how many times MS had to correct them with the right numbers.

Let not get started on their flawed logic which would make Amazon the biggest cloud services because Amazon Prime 200mil members have access to Luna even though probably only less then 5% going to use Luna.

Obscure_Observer131d ago

"EU Official Says CMA Overstated Microsoft's Share in Cloud Gaming Market"

If true, more like *fabricated* Microsoft's Share in Cloud Gaming Market, just to have an argument to block the deal.

343_Guilty_Spark131d ago

It was never really about Cloud. It was about protecting the market leader, Sony.

S2Killinit131d ago

Care to tell us where you got that insider information from?

Mooppeister130d ago (Edited 130d ago )

After Redfall and Starfield, Microsoft probably needs activision more than Sony does. I'm not even mad anymore given the current state of xbox, Xbox needs to compete. Give them Activision if it will help, they need something desperately. Seems like Bethesda didn't pay off. So let's now do Activision.

What's next, Ubisoft?

Extermin8or3_131d ago

Thry went off of microsoftd own figures and the nvidia service is totally different to games pass streaming service, proper....

gold_drake131d ago

i would be careful saying Amazon has 200mio. members.

how many Windows pc's are out there?
each and everyone of them are capable of cloud gaming. the numbers rack up if you consider that. plus the xbox owners.

blacktiger130d ago

One corporation to rule them all
and nice name

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 130d ago
131d ago Replies(1)
Magic_Spatula131d ago

Honestly, what is the big deal about the merger? It's not like either company will cease to operate if it doesn't go through. They'll just keep doing what they always do. And it's not like both companies need each other to keep functioning. Microsoft is Microsoft. They will keep going regardless and it's not like Activision needs Microsoft money with how much they make every fiscal year. Is the merger going to make both companies any better? Is it really just because Microsoft has the money and wanted to do it? How will it really benefit the consumers? Their games on GamePass? Hasn't it been noted that devs/publishers don't really make a huge profit off of GamePass? Even though AAA games don't even make money off of sales alone and make most of their money off of microtransactions. Just ranting cuz I think this whole this is stupid and yes, I understand it's a business thing but I really don't see how it benefits the consumers much. Microsoft is trying to monopolize by acquiring the biggest third parties and if they keep succeeding, the gaming industry will have a giant problem to deal with.

343_Guilty_Spark131d ago (Edited 131d ago )

“Hasn't it been noted that devs/publishers don't really make a huge profit off of GamePass?”

For some yes they gets boosts in profit and more exposure especially if it’s a smaller game, for others no. It really depends.

Okay so Microsoft could do what Sony does and make third party deals so that certain games can only be played on the PS consoles, and then eventually come to PC, but nothing else.

Microsoft says well we don’t care where you play our games.

Which one is more pro-consumer?

shinoff2183131d ago


Ms does don3rd party deals already. They won't get alot of support for some aaa 3rd party deals cause devs want to SELL their games they poured blood sweat and tears into. So I imagine ms doesn't get alot of returned phone calls. You don't think ms hasn't tried to get third party exclusives on the aaa level. Imyou got to be kidding yourself

mocaak131d ago

Are you really this ignorant, or are you purposefully spreading lies? Microsoft has been doing third party deals since the moment they entered console market. The only difference now is they switched to permenantly blocking games from competition by buying up the industry.

343_Guilty_Spark131d ago


Name one as big as FF16, or Street Fighter, or the rumored Castlevania, Silent Hill, or Metal Gear 4 remake.

Chevalier131d ago

Third party deals? You mean like Xbox with Contraband, Warhammer Darktides, Stalker 2, Ark 2, Scorn? Seems like you're cherry picking thinking only Playstation has these deals.

shinoff2183131d ago



You don't think ms has tried to get a big aaa release exclusive. If you do your lying to yourself. Ms has definitely tried. No aaa dev will do it again cause they want to sell. Devs know that alot of the fanbase doesn't buy. So yea big bad ol Sony is doing third party deals but ms isn't. It's because they can't get them not they haven't tried

wiz7191131d ago

@Mocaak what games have they blocked ?? I always ask that question.

FlintGREY131d ago


The success of the entire 360 generation was due to 3rd party deals. Stop your bullshit

S2Killinit131d ago

Are you forgetting that MS relied so heavily on buying 3rd party exclusivity that they are now having to spend 69 BILLION to buy up a large chunk of the industry? How convenient.

tay8701131d ago

@343 ill give you some examples. How about paying MS paying 100 million dollars for rise of the tomb raider? Other examples bioshock, mass effect 2, gta IV dlcs to name just a few.

KillBill131d ago


Microsoft for sure mirrored Sony business practice back in the day. It was a practice that worked when they shared more of an equal base back in the Xbox 360 days. Later generations has been less so equal base so the business practice costs Microsoft more than same deals made for Sony in ventures. They have then changed leadership and gone with a different focus where MAU is the backbone of their business plan. GamePass has become a heavy focus and money for big name exclusivity has gone towards shoring up development team long term investment instead of short term expenditures that don't payoff.

Microsoft still invests in smaller upcoming development teams and does so with capital and lucrative development offers. This still falls in line with some practices that Sony does but does not focus on exclusion for the sake of exclusion that Sony still delves into heavily.

Both Sony and Microsoft have some similar practices but in the bigger picture they have hugely different focus on overall company business plans. Sony is seeing their short term focus of 3rd party exclusivity for big names is not paying out as much as they projected. Microsoft is seeing that long term investment still can have hiccups if they don't provide immediate results for the masses. Both are running viable business plans but when it comes to consumer interests many are ignoring what is really happening with both.

DarXyde130d ago (Edited 130d ago )


"Name one as big as FF16, or Street Fighter, or the rumored Castlevania, Silent Hill, or Metal Gear 4 remake."

I wouldn't count rumors until something is shown. Until then, it is immaterial.

Street Fighter V is a different case. Capcom was in pretty dire straits and they needed support to make it. Fortunately, Capcom came back strong and their games are multiplatform. I'm exchange to make that happen, Sony secured an entry that was weaker than 4 and likely weaker than 6. Hardly a loss to anyone outside of the PlayStation ecosystem.

I reckon Final Fantasy XVI has timed exclusivity. It'll probably come to Xbox and 20 people will buy it with the rest waiting for it to come to Game Pass.

I'll steel man your argument on Konami games for a moment: Konami has no idea what they're doing. At all. The last Metal Gear was Survive, and that is profoundly depressing for me because it is my favorite series. If Konami wants to license games out and someone's willing to pay for it, great. They're not doing anything with their IPs.

Now then... About Microsoft not caring where you play their games. Didn't they buy Halo from Bungie and Gears from Epic to ensure they don't appear on other platforms? Wasn't Redfall and Starfield cancelled for PS5? Wonder which platforms you'll need for the next Elder Scrolls or Fallout?

Sony does some questionable stuff. Definitely. As for who is more pro consumer, I find that debatable. Games are $70 all generation on PlayStation, but I don't doubt the quality of my games either. Personally, Game Pass is something I can only see myself entertaining in my younger years. I don't have time for all that. A few physical releases that are stellar quality works for my life.

That aside, are you really acting like buying Minecraft isn't bigger than a deal for Final Fantasy XVI? Are you serious?

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 130d ago
343_Guilty_Spark131d ago

CMA replying to EU after the decision reeks of desperation. Their own Twitter page has responses from Brits, that are overwhelmingly negative. UK gamers were not considered in this process.

AmUnRa131d ago

Correction: Xbox UK gamers respondig overwelmingly negative, dont try to suggest that All UK gamers where.....When the deal would not go trough all Activision Blizzard games would be on xbox AND Playstation anyway.....In Europe i fear that MS are gonna use tactics like they always have been doing conguer erase and extinct......

343_Guilty_Spark131d ago

Why do you assume they are all Xbox gamers?

Eonjay131d ago

The CMA doesn't come off as desperate. Also, taking a step back and getting other points of view like that of Warren Buffett you begin to see that there is a lot of politics underpinning regulatory agencies around the world. And concoordinately, large corporations have the money to weild politicians as a means for pressuring said bodies.

Therefore the reason why the CMA is blocking the deal is because they can where others cannot. This is because of the independence afforded to the CMA.

343_Guilty_Spark131d ago

It’s because the C in CMA stands for clowns.

gold_drake131d ago

also not quite correct.

ive seen mostly positive ones. not sure when you looked.

Petebloodyonion131d ago

The only interesting tidbit of news versus all the other CMA vs MS is the knowledge that it's starting to be a battle between UK regulators and EU regulators.

As I said it's unusual that regulators need to re-explain their decisions and reply to others when other regulators make their own decisions.

Extermin8or3_131d ago

They've only had todo that because Microsoft kicked up a public stink and then clearly went and lobbied mps despite mps not actually being able todo much about it.

Petebloodyonion131d ago

I'm pretty sure that it's gonna take more than a company public tantrum to make a regulator like the CMA directly reply to another regulator or another governmental instance.

But if the case that MS easily Lobbied PMs, politicians, congressman, other companies, other regulators to put pressure on CMA,, etc. Then here's a free tip to MS that will save them lots of money and trouble
You should have given half to CMA.

Basically I doubt that MS have enough resources to secretly bribe everybody.