Currently Online 
It's increasingly obvious that CMA wanted to block this deal from day one because of how ridiculous these arguments are, I think they dropped the Console argument only because it was so incredibly flawed and Microsoft pointed it out and they didn't want it used against them but the Cloud argument is just as bad.
We recognise that we cannot predict with any certainty how exactly the market might evolve absent the Merger (or if the Merger is allowed to proceed on the basis of the Microsoft Cloud Remedy). Neither, in our view, can the Parties or third parties.
So let me get this straight, nobody can predict how the Cloud market will evolve in the future, not even CMA itself, but you're blocking the deal based on how the Cloud market may evolve in the future...? Lol.
We have concluded in Chapter 7 that Microsoft would not have the incentive to foreclose rival console gaming services in the UK. However, this is not determinative of whether Microsoft has a commercial incentive to develop and publish native CoD titles for Nintendo. This would involve substantial costs that would need to be recouped through additional sales of native versions of CoD on Nintendo. In addition, placing valuable CoD content on Nintendo would in principle increase diversion away from Xbox and towards Nintendo. While this effect may be relatively limited given our findings in Chapter 7 that Nintendo competes less closely with Xbox, making CoD on Nintendo could make it a closer competitor to Xbox, which we consider would not be in Microsoft's interest. The Parties have not provided us with convincing evidence of the expected costs, revenues and profitability that might inform an assessment of Microsoft's commercial incentives in this respect.
All irrelevant since Microsoft literally has a written contract with Nintendo for CoD on Nintendo Switch...Unless CMA is claiming to know the contract better than what Nintendo themselves literally signed. Microsoft may not have financial incentive (although I disagree with that, I think CoD on Switch would be profitable) but it's all irrelevant, they have a contract with Nintendo, they are putting CoD on Switch whether they have financial incentive or not, they can't get out of it.
The agreement has a ten-year term. We consider that account must be made for the inherent uncertainty over the scale of the benefits over time. The likelihood of the assumptions remaining constant will decrease over time, and the changing nature of the console market makes it harder to make any predictions about how a particular retail product (for example, CoD [REDACTED]) might evolve, or how customer behaviour might develop. As such, it is not a reasonable assumption that any annual benefit would remain constant over the term of the agreement. Instead, in our view the benefits are likely to decline significantly (and certainly at a rate greater than the 'risk-free' rate used in Microsoft's NPV calculation) over time, reducing our confidence that they can be expected to be realised.
More speculation that is hard to predict but you'll do it anyway to justify a block.
