I was optimistic for the CMA, I won’t be caught again…
I think this is a solution but I have no idea what they can or cannot do. Gamepass for Xcloud could become a separate service and Gamepass Ultimate could be modified in the UK. It seems more interesting to me to kill Xcloud in the UK than to kill the deal, but who knows what Microsoft will do. We have long months of questioning, unless Europe kills the deal in the coming weeks.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely”
It is absurd that a regulator decides to ignore the figures and prevent competition. CMA claims to protect the Cloud Platforms, but the Cloud Platforms tell the CMA that they disagree and that the deal will benefit them. What joke ! What credibility remains to the CMA which acts like a mad horse?
I noticed this part in the CMA final decision document:
We found that the Microsoft Cloud Remedy had several shortcomings connected with the growing and fast-moving nature of cloud gaming services. In particular, the scope of the remedy was limited to cloud gaming providers with specific business models. As a result, Microsoft would not have to supply Activision’s full range of games to providers that, absent the Merger, may have entered into a different type of commercial relationship with Activision (eg, through exclusive content, joint marketing arrangements, or a multi-game subscription service like Game Pass) or to cloud gaming providers that may decide to operate using a non-Windows PC operating system (eg Linux). It also did not provide for competition through differentiation in content. The complexity of the remedy, in the context of a dynamic market that is evolving, also meant that it had a high risk of circumvention, and that it would have been difficult to monitor effectively. In light of these shortcomings, we could not be sufficiently confident that the Microsoft Cloud Remedy would have addressed our concerns, and we found that the only effective remedy to the SLC is to prohibit the Merger.
However, some of Xbox’s games are supported on Steam Deck, or even verified on Steam Deck.
So wouldn’t that make that point from the CMA completely wrong? 
I also tried asking ChatGPT 4 about it (Note that ChatGPT only has knowledge up to September 2021 or September 2022, I can’t remember which), and here’s what it said:
Me:
The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) blocked the acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft, and for part of their reason, they said: “We found that the Microsoft Cloud Remedy had several shortcomings connected with the growing and fast-moving nature of cloud gaming services. In particular, the scope of the remedy was limited to cloud gaming providers with specific business models. As a result, Microsoft would not have to supply Activision’s full range of games to providers that, absent the Merger, may have entered into a different type of commercial relationship with Activision (eg, through exclusive content, joint marketing arrangements, or a multi-game subscription service like Game Pass) or to cloud gaming providers that may decide to operate using a non-Windows PC operating system (eg Linux). It also did not provide for competition through differentiation in content. The complexity of the remedy, in the context of a dynamic market that is evolving, also meant that it had a high risk of circumvention, and that it would have been difficult to monitor effectively. In light of these shortcomings, we could not be sufficiently confident that the Microsoft Cloud Remedy would have addressed our concerns, and we found that the only effective remedy to the SLC is to prohibit the Merger.”.
Here’s a description of what the Steam Deck is: “The Steam Deck is a handheld gaming computer developed by Valve that was released on February 25, 2022. It has a seven-inch screen with 1280×800 resolution and built-in controls, including touchpads and joysticks. The device uses Valve’s Linux distribution SteamOS, which incorporates the namesake Steam storefront. SteamOS incorporates Valve’s Proton compatibility layer, allowing users to run Windows applications and games.”
If the Steam Deck uses Linux as its operating system, and there are some games made by Microsoft’s Bethesda and Xbox Game Studios which are either verified for Steam Deck or playable on Steam Deck, isn’t the CMA’s decision wrong?
ChatGPT 4:
As an AI language model, I cannot provide real-time information on the CMA’s decisions. However, I can provide an analysis based on the information provided.
The CMA’s decision to block the acquisition of Activision Blizzard by Microsoft is based on a variety of concerns, including potential anti-competitive effects on cloud gaming services. While the availability of Microsoft’s Bethesda and Xbox Game Studios games on the Steam Deck, a Linux-based system, may appear to contradict the CMA’s concerns about Microsoft’s potential unwillingness to support non-Windows platforms, this is just one aspect of the larger decision-making process.
The CMA’s decision also takes into account other factors like limited scope of the proposed remedy, the risk of circumvention, and difficulties in monitoring the remedy effectively. The CMA is concerned with preserving competition across the entire gaming market and not just specific platforms or distribution methods.
Moreover, the Steam Deck represents just one potential platform for gaming, and while the availability of certain games on the device may indicate some level of support for non-Windows operating systems, it does not guarantee that the same level of support would be provided to other platforms or services if the acquisition were to go through.
In conclusion, while the presence of some Microsoft games on the Steam Deck may raise questions about the CMA’s decision, the decision to block the merger was made based on a holistic evaluation of the potential competitive effects of the acquisition, and this one aspect does not necessarily invalidate the CMA’s concerns.
We shouldn’t assume MS wasn’t aware of this. The CMA was basically making an unrealistic/impossible request. So MS might have did their deals not hoping for the CMA to accept them but hoping for them to be adequate upon appeal. This also plays into the decision by the EU.
Its best not to think of the CMA as rational, logical, honest or impeccable.
If its in their report, and its wrong, they are 100% aware of it. Its because it helps them block the deal.
If you have evidence to the contrary, the CMA “doesn’t find that evidence to be meaningful”.
Imagine they are Sony.
Hopefully when the EU passes it, Microsoft wil have a strong number of regulators who also saw all these issues and didn’t consider them worth much consideration it will merely highlight the CMA didnt do their job propely.
Not sure if it was posted here but Microsoft now may have even bigger problems, the CMA is basically telling them that they can’t buy a smaller publisher, they said this: “Given its already strong position, even a moderate increment to Microsoft’s strength may be expected to substantially reduce competition in this developing market, to the detriment of current and future cloud gaming users.”
I want this thing to be over with but I can’t blame Microsoft if they try to fight this for as long as it takes now especially when they’re also being told not to try to go for smaller publishers, hell that statement is so vague that we don’t even know if they’re also referring to independent studios, imagine Microsoft trying to acquire Bethesda in this climate? the CMA would do everything it can to block, even a Bungie would be tough to get, and they don’t give a crap about their position in the market right now, it’s all concerns about what might happen some day… I don’t think anyone can disagree that this is simply about sending a message to big tech companies whether their reasoning makes sense or not doesn’t matter to them, not when companies have almost no way of challenging their decisions, they had an agenda that they would block from the very start and they went through with it, even the solutions they gave Microsoft were just impossible to agree to.
Yes, and this is why it may be more appropriate to simply back out of the UK until the UK provides regulatory oversight or review process for regulatory decisions that mirrors first world countries (and Id be blunt about that part).
Never happening, they’re a capitalist corporation at the end of the day so they would never take a stand like this, it’s all about money. Microsoft walking out of the UK also hands over that entire market to their competitors while still having to follow through with the ABK concessions.
Capitalist corporations need to be able to grow and expand. This ruling says they cant. Even a moderate increase in any area where they have any amount of influenece would experience a block.
Its choosing whether to continue to do business in 1 area with a capped population or being able to expand and grow in the rest of the world.
In fact they have a fiscal obligation to shareholders to ensure they are not capped growth wise.
The threat is all you need. The UK would be a wasteland after a week of MS product absence. The Government wouldnt be dumb enough to risk it. Worse case, MS nudges them to turnover the deal with the remedies already offered.
It would be easy for the CMA, the UK government, and its citizens to stand up and rally against MS when this is spun as corporate bullying.
I think a lot could be said by diverting future investment.
That won’t solve anything. You’re left with the same shit situation. The only way they get leverage that way is to announce they are building a brand new 20 billion dollar facility somewhere in Europe that will employee 40,000 people and announce that bidding for the location runs between now and June 30th.
Rare and Playground games operate out of the UK, cmon be real.
Yeah, that’s what I mean.
But pulling out would villify MS pretty easily.
They don’t need to bail out of the UK to get this deal through. I’m talking in general.
If they choose to back out of the UK because of this lack of regulatory oversight, they could do so after letting this acquisition fall through. At that point they’d be doing it for the future of their company and not to strong arm a country into allowing an acquisition. They could also then do so over a more prolonged timeframe that ensures a smother transition to new locations.
Companies do sell the right of there IPs to some other companies
MS may sell the streaming to Cod to someone else in the for UK region
That’s the only thing that could be possible
Going up against a rogue state… The deal is dead to be honest
And MS is fighting because they just have to at this point
The only way to fight politics is politics.
Pulling out of the UK would just put them in the crosshairs of world governments looking to make examples, you just know the goal of agencies like the CMA and FTC is to break down big corps into smaller companies, they would use “Microsoft going rogue” as an excuse to try and do just that, it’s just not going to happen but hey the CMA made some wild claims in their conclusion that might help Microsoft in their appeal, with the logic they’re using they would’ve been laughed out of court in the US.
Going rogue would be a swift immediate exit. They would need to do that to influence this deal. They dont need to do that in order to secure future growth for their company though. They can let whatever the UK decides stand and still exit.
They can perform a controlled and planned exit. The only thing that would be immediate is slowing/ eventually haulting new sales, as well as a full stop on new contract bids on any UK government contracts. From there, they can continue service, announcing end of life or transition of service support dates in the UK. They can work on their employee relocation and to new facilities with time. They can wrap up existing contracts.
It would not be some sudden or dramtic thing. Just one day it would be like they were never there 
