Xbox |OT|

[EpicRandy]

Machiavellian said:

Ryuu96 said:

Idas Said:

Submissions from MS/ABK and Nvidia in New Zealand about the Statement of Issues:

• Microsoft – Keystone report in support of submission on Microsoft and Activision Blizzard statement of issues (9 pages)
• Microsoft – Submission on Microsoft and Activision Blizzard statement of issues (101 pages)
• NVIDIA – Submission on Microsoft and Activision Blizzard statement of issues (2 pages)

---

Microsoft is using Google's testimony (which was meant to help FTC) now to help them against New Zealand, haha.

4.11 Furthermore, [ ], in its testimony to the US District Court, 139 Google accepted that its cloud gaming service, Stadia, competed with consoles and PC distribution platforms. 140

They also mention that EC doesn't consider Cloud Gaming a market.

Cloud gaming is no more than a feature that provides an alternative means for gamers to access content on a device (i.e. they can purchase a physical disc, download or stream content). That is consistent with the findings of the EC, which has concluded on the basis of feedback from market participants, that the relevant market is an overall market for game distribution and that this market should not be segmented based on type of access (i.e. physical disc, downloading or streaming).

When you think about it, can MS successfully defend their stance that Cloud gaming is just another distribution channel.  Lets take a look at the different services from Luna, PS+ and GP.  For PS+ and GP, they both provide download service to a device as well as streaming from a cloud service.  In both instances, you pay a sub price for a collection of games and have access to those games based on any distribution method you choice to use.

Luna on the other hand is also a subscription service but I do not believe it has a download option for the games.  Could it be said that only Luna is a true Cloud base service or would it just be considered another subscription service which would be the definition and that streaming is its only distribution of software.  I can definitely see MS successfully defending this angle in US courts but not sure how that goes with the CMA or New Zealand.

I think it's more of a latter for Luna, it's a content library subscription service with streaming as the only distribution method enabled. I think the best way to look at things is to ask yourself what the customer of X wants of X. Luna's offering incentive comes predominantly from its content library, all tiers/channels are based on a different subset of content and not on service performance/resolution. Since they don't sell the actual service directly it means the cloud aspect is just a selling point of what is being sold which is: content library.

True/pure cloud streaming services are only the ones that are sold directly to you, Geforce Now, Boosteroid... It cannot be disputed customers of those services actually purchase based on the merits of the actual streaming service. Those are the only ones that have a critical incentive to innovate in that regard because they compete with their properties.

If you gave $1B to Luna and Geforce Now to invest in their offering, Geforce Now is going to use it to build a server and do R&D to reduce lag, latency, increase resolutions, better compression, etc... Luna is more than likely going to use it to predominantly add content to their subscription.

I did a thread exactly about this where I go more in depth.