By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ryuu96 on 14 March 2023
Edit Thread

CMA had three main complaints at the start.

  1. Console Gaming.
  2. Subscription Services.
  3. Cloud Gaming.

They rightfully dropped their "Subscription Services" complaint because it was a weak argument.

After the Nvidia and Boosteroid deals, I really can't see how they can possibly keep the Cloud Gaming complaint without looking like serious clowns, it was already a weak argument for a number of reasons and now Microsoft has basically blown away almost all of CMA's complaints, by partnering with the largest Cloud Gaming provider in the world in Nvidia and now the largest independent Cloud Gaming provider in Boosteroid.

I'm seeing a lot of "never heard of them" but I think that is actually a strong point in Microsoft's favour. This is the largest independent provider in the world but with "only" 4m users, they're a relatively new entry into the market without their own massive Cloud service to back them up and it seems as though that the vast majority of gamers don't even know who they are.

One of CMA's Cloud arguments is that Microsoft having the IPs would hurt new and smaller entries into the market.

Well...Here is Microsoft giving one of the smaller entries a massive boost and propping them up. Boosteroid being unknown makes this a bigger deal, it becomes hard to argue that they are hurting competition big and small, Microsoft is offering some of the biggest IP in Gaming to help an up and coming Cloud Gaming service.

Them having access to those massive IPs for 10 years will no doubt boost their service and brand recognition. Microsoft is helping both well established and powerful market leaders (Nvidia) and now relatively new, largest independent but still relatively small providers (Boosteroid) and they are both in favour of the deal.

Who is CMA protecting by keeping their argument on Cloud Gaming?