Microsoft-Activision-Blizzard Discussion Thread |OT4| - Dawn of the Final Day, Deal is done!

[Daniel]

@Shadowgasm

What existed with the agreement with the EU was a free, world-wide license for any streaming service to utilize CoD and ABK games. Now, those same companies will have to pay for those licenses and many probably won’t be able to afford them. This deal is far worse for everyone involved.

But they get a big “win” for their office

Kinda funny how this is all for the consumers when really it’s for them to make it seem like consumers are winning.

[Zappy5]

@Shadowgasm

What existed with the agreement with the EU was a free, world-wide license for any streaming service to utilize CoD and ABK games. Now, those same companies will have to pay for those licenses and many probably won’t be able to afford them. This deal is far worse for everyone involved.

I don’t disagree but the CMA didn’t like it as that free licence was entirely contingent on Microsoft confusing to play ball. And in their view at any time could decide not to. This deal removes that possibility.

[strawman]

@Shadowgasm

What existed with the agreement with the EU was a free, world-wide license for any streaming service to utilize CoD and ABK games. Now, those same companies will have to pay for those licenses and many probably won’t be able to afford them. This deal is far worse for everyone involved.

I think cloud providers would still be able to stream Activision games free under the ‘buy your own game’ model, license fees apply to multigame subscriptions?

[Shadowgasm]

@Zappy5

I don’t disagree but the CMA didn’t like it as that free licence was entirely contingent on Microsoft confusing to play ball. And in their view at any time could decide not to. This deal removes that possibility.

It was legally guaranteed for 10 years.

[leburn98]

@Zappy5

What you have now is free and open. Anyone can bid for access to ABK games to stream. Just as they can do without an acquisition.

You seem to think that free and open means cloud rights free for everyone. It does not. It just means that they are available to the whole market. Which they are. ABK could have sold their cloud rights to anyone for any exclusive deal but that’s still a free and open market because anyone can have them.

The CMA were concerned that if MS had them there was a possibility the market was closed and nobody could have them in reality.

Prior to the Ubisoft deal, anyone who approached MS would get a 10-year deal based on the outlined EC commitments. Now it is at the discretion of Ubisoft.

Also, in the current deal, Microsoft still has significant leverage over any other cloud provider just by being the developer of the product. For example: Microsoft could easily waive usage fees in exchange for Xbox Cloud streaming rights (timed/exclusive). As the owner of the product, plus as a platform holder, Microsoft could leverage both ABK and the Xbox platform to get a better deal.

I don’t see how this is better than what was already presented.

[CallMeCraig]

@Zappy5

What you have now is free and open. Anyone can bid for access to ABK games to stream. Just as they can do without an acquisition.

You seem to think that free and open means cloud rights free for everyone. It does not. It just means that they are available to the whole market. Which they are. ABK could have sold their cloud rights to anyone for any exclusive deal but that’s still a free and open market because anyone can have them.

The CMA were concerned that if MS had them there was a possibility the market was closed and nobody could have them in reality.

But access to ABK licenses is not open and not free and not competitive. You have to call Yves and pay him. An EU company controls the UK cloud market now. I’m pretty sure half the British people considers this extremely unfree. And to make sure he doesnt fuck around, the CMA has to monitor Ubisoft (a French company, in the EU, lol) for the next 15 years.

Market access will also be more expensive than under the MS or Activision because Ubisoft have to recoup their money. So by definition this is less open and less free and less competitive. I would not be shocked if cloud companies complain about this in the next weeks because they will have to pay more money. What if (more like a when) Ubisoft comes in more dire straits with their financials? They will squeeze the cloud market. How is that good for competition in the cloud market or consumers?

The CMA just had to accept the EU deal and be done with it. Would be better for the cloud market, consumers and competition. But no, that was to good and rational. Now instead to an Amercian company, UK customers and cloud providers pay fees to EU. Brexit always delivers.

[binarymelon]

@TheLegendaryGamer

AWS is the number 1 cloud giant though.

Not in cloud gaming they’re not.

[Zappy5]

@Voodoopeople

Not the UK I live in they haven’t.

I mean I don’t know what U.K. you live in but is it the one where regulators have been granted more power, like the CMA, OFS, OFWAT etc and indeed are getting even more powers etc, where the state has intervened to curtail protest, where the state has stripped unions of powers, where the state has spent 13 years in control of its own client media, where it has intervened in devolved matters, dictated to businesses…I can go on…

In the last 13 years the government have borrowed more money than the entire history of U.K. borrowing before that…

I’m struggling, really struggling to see any argument that we have a ‘small state’ by any definition. Other than they’ve absolutely decimated public services as they always do…

[Zappy5]

@Shadowgasm

It was legally guaranteed for 10 years.

It was in a contract that MS could choose to break unilaterally. That was the issue. The deal now can’t be broken by MS unilaterally….

[Jeans]

I’m here trying to wrap my head around Ubisoft having the rights for streaming ABK-Blizzard games and I just can’t.

It makes no sense.

Just close it down now. Please.

[OD62]

Well, I still think Microsoft should ditch Xcloud and sign contracts with other companies to stream their games. They will always be able to relaunch the service when the technology will have more importance on the market, but for the moment it is more a handicap than anything else.

[Zappy5]

@CallMeCraig

…U, lol) for the next 15 years. Market access will also be more expensive than under the MS or Activision because Ubisoft have to recoup their money. So by definition this is less open and less free and less competitive. I would not be shocked if cloud companies complain about this in the next weeks because they will have to pay more money. What if (more like a when) Ubisoft comes in more dire straits with their financials? They will squeeze the cloud market. How is that good for competition in the cloud market or consumers? The CMA just had to accept the EU deal and be done with it. Would be better for the cloud market, consumers and competition. But no, that was to good and rational. Now instead to an Amercian company, UK customers and cloud providers pay fees to EU. Brexit always delivers.

I don’t think you understand what the CMA mean by free and open. They don’t mean free for everyone and anyone. They simply mean that the market is competitively open. If you want the games in your service you go to Ubisoft and negotiate a free market rate. That’s what the CMA want. Everyone can do that. In their view if MS owned the rights to cloud stream their games the market could in the future not be free and open, since MS would have incentive and opportunity to decide who could have what and on what terms.

Ubisoft have an incentive to recoup their money but not to preclude any particular market operators or entrants and their ability to do so would be limited by the deal itself anyway.

[OD62]

Just one question: how will Ubisoft be able to pay the rights to Microsoft?

[Zappy5]

@leburn98

Prior to the Ubisoft deal, anyone who approached MS would get a 10-year deal based on the outlined EC commitments. Now it is at the discretion of Ubisoft.

Also, in the current deal, Microsoft still has significant leverage over any other cloud provider just by being the developer of the product. For example: Microsoft could easily waive usage fees in exchange for Xbox Cloud streaming rights (timed/exclusive). As the owner of the product, plus as a platform holder, Microsoft could leverage both ABK and the Xbox platform to get a better deal.

I don’t see how this is better than what was already presented.

It isn’t better for anyone other than the CMA who wanted a structural remedy that could not be broken. This is it. It fits their remit and concern that MS could at any point decide to foreclose its competitors of situations or circumstances changed. Now for the next 15 years they would be guaranteed to be unable to do that. It’s the guarantee the CMA wanted.

Is it better? No. But that’s their own mess to deal with.

The CMA wanted a guaranteed ‘open market’ for a long period. They have achieved that.

[Jeans]

@OD62

Well, I still think Microsoft should ditch Xcloud and sign contracts with other companies to stream their games. They will always be able to relaunch the service when the technology will have more importance on the market, but for the moment it is more a handicap than anything else.

They invested too much money at this point to back down right now, but I get your point that it feels like a weakness sometimes. Especially right now when they are forced to nurture their own competition against them just so people have the illusion of choice.

And Ubisoft+ isn’t even on PlayStation yet.

[Shadowgasm]

@Zappy5

It was in a contract that MS could choose to break unilaterally. That was the issue. The deal now can’t be broken by MS unilaterally….

Interesting, didn’t know that.

Well, hopefully this finally satisfies them so we can all move on from this nonsense.

[Resist]

@OD62

Just one question: how will Ubisoft be able to pay the rights to Microsoft?

cloud streaming rights probably aren’t too expensive.

[howlingmosquito (mosquito)]

@OD62

Just one question: how will Ubisoft be able to pay the rights to Microsoft?

With money or releasing their own games on Game pass

[Hue]

@mrbobman15

I have my doubts that cloud gaming brings in a valuable playerbase. There are too many variables that make cloud gaming difficult for the core gamer, this is a smart move from MS to please relations with Ubisoft and please regulators, there’s no way that in the next 15 years cloud gaming will become better.

Dude 15 years in tech is literally a lifetime.

15 years ago all of this stuff didn’t exist:

• Android - yes the operating system!
• Smartphones / Tablets
• 720p & 1080p support on YouTube
• HD TV broadcasting (1080p)
• 4K TV’s
• 3D Printing
• Deepfakes / Image recognition
• Smart Speakers / Voice recognition
• Crypto
• Electric cars
• Self driving cars!
• 4G/5G mobile internet
• Fibre broadband (UK)
• Instagram
• Disney+
• Netflix (streaming started 16 years ago!)

Damn that made me feel old

In 15 years from now I expect them to have not only solved the latency issue in cloud gaming but be playable in 4K/120 and for it to have become mainstream.

[OD62]

@Resist

cloud streaming rights probably aren’t too expensive.

@howlingmosquito

With money or releasing their own games on Game pass

Wait, I’m not very familiar with Ubisoft’s cloud service. Is it a service where you have to buy your games before you can play them like Nvidia, or is it a subscription service where you have access to the cloud gaming library like Xcloud? If it’s a subscription, they will necessarily have to pay a substantial amount of money for games like COD. Is not it ? We will probably have more details in the days to come. The relationship between Xbox and Ubisoft seems to be getting stronger, hopefully that will lead to more announcements.