By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

The CAT released a summary of MS appeal.

1 claim in particular exactly address the situation I described in the OP :

 In its market definition analysis, the Respondent failed to consider potential switching to native gaming, resulting in a flawed conclusion that cloud gaming services fall in a separate product market

In other words, any future entity would have the ability to switch at will to pure native distribution making all remedies that do not pertain to address specifically Cloud service themselves (to the benefits of entities that monetize the service directly) remedies that actually apply to other markets and thus are not actually about the Cloud.