By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Ryuu96 on 30 June 2023
Edit Thread
EpicRandy said:

Some other points which I think could have been made by MS.

  • The cloud, if we accept to define it as its own market, is already way more diverse than the console market in the number of actors.
  • If ever Cloud gaming properties become good enough for mass market adoption, why would MS content position itself differently than with the console market even in the context of ABK titles becoming exclusive? Sony will for sure use their Massive exclusive library to secure a competitive position and if they don't that would be of their own choice, likewise for Nintendo, steam, Tencent, and every other actor with a sufficient content library.
  • Why would MS content restriction to the cloud be judged cutthroat four cloud gaming when a competitor with content proven to successfully give them a dominant position in the console market and with 4 times the amount of exclusive not be considered so? So if MS is blocked from merging for fear of driving the cloud market when/if it matures, wouldn't this would only result in conferring Sony the abilities/benefits from the same dominant position it enjoys currently in the console market and being the one driving the cloud market? So here the court would not protect the consumer, only be deciding who will lead and who will play catch up in a mature cloud market.

I feel like the judge did make that point in relation to subscription services, she basically implied that Sony could do day one releases using their huge IPs as well and grow their subscription service but they choose not to and that isn't Microsoft's fault, that surely can be applied to Cloud services too.

As an example, the Judge also said a lot that COD is just "one IP" and how can one IP be this significant, she listed off even Hogwarts Legacy as a major IP released this year which is currently the best selling, she doesn't seem to buy the theory that one IP can be essential and she knows there's multiple major IPs in the market.

So that being said, if one IP isn't essential to Console, then one IP shouldn't be essential for Cloud services either? I feel like Microsoft made a good point in backing that up by using TV Subs as well and that everyone would like to own the Bond IP but nobody needs to own the Bond IP to be a success in the market, there's plenty of huge IPs that people own or create themselves and grow their services.

Microsoft's major advantage in Cloud shouldn't be considered content because there's dozens of huge IPs and big IPs are constantly being created, Microsoft's major advantage in the Cloud is having a huge Azure infrastructure...That I feel like wasn't mentioned at all, Lol.

But lets say, an ISP enters the Cloud market (I actually think these guys have more chance than most if they become interested), they already largely have the infrastructure or capability, lets say one of these ISPs partner with a publisher, they still have plenty to choose from or plenty of independent larger IPs still available AND they have the audience too.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 30 June 2023