Why Do People View the MS Acquisition of ABK as a "Good Thing?"

[G2ThaUNiT]

NintendoPie said:

gtotheunit91 said:

The one good thing the FTC and CMA got out of this was forcing MS to play nice with other cloud streaming services and other platforms.

You'll get ActiBlizz games on Xbox, PlayStation, Nintendo, PC (Steam and Battle.net, maybe Epic Games Store down the line) stream the games on xCloud, Nvidia GeForce Now, Boosteroid, Nware, and one or two other streaming services that I don't recall off the top of my head. But streaming services that would never in their company's lifetime been able to afford ActiBlizz games on their service.

And those weren't just publicity stunts. Xbox first-party games have already been coming to those services over the past couple of months.

Just through xCloud alone, you'll be able to stream these games on Samsung TVs, iPhone, iPad, Android (smartphone and tablet) Mac computers through Safari, and additional web browsers.

That's a LOT of additional players that will get to play these games.

One thing people really need to get out of their mind and think that it was part of the court proceedings is that this is concerning Microsoft as a whole. This entire court preceding was pertaining exclusively to Xbox's overall marketshare in gaming and nothing else. 

honestly, i'm not even really surprised by MS' "good-will" in the way they are handling cloud gaming. even before this, MS brought their internal IPs to other platforms and had no qualms about it. (thinking of Minecraft, for instance.) 

my problem isn't even necessarily with how i think MS should or will handle their now-future IP, just rather that i think this sets a dangerous precedent for the gaming industry as a whole. one that already has gone way too far down the slippery slope in the movie and television industry, as i mentioned in the OP.

if that's the one good thing we as consumers got out of this, i'm not sure that will be good enough to cover the fire this has basically already started in the industry.

i guess the FTC (or whomever) framed the scope of the case poorly then, as i would think this, in the long-run, does concern Microsoft as a whole and not just XB. i'm actually kind of confused by what you mean here considering they are one-in-the-same in my mind.

Yeah but one big thing you forget is that Disney was already the largest movie distributor in the world when they bought Fox. There are a lot of large publishers in the gaming industry whereas compared to the movie industry, there's only several. And Xbox is last in the console space.

In regards to what you're confused about when it comes to Xbox being separate from Microsoft when it comes to gaming, let me put it this way. Xbox is a subsidiary of Microsoft the same way PlayStation is a subsidiary of Sony. Do you consider PlayStation and something like Columbia Pictures one-in-the-same? After all, both divisions are subsidiaries of Sony. Of course not. 

Xbox, the subsidiary of Microsoft, is way behind its competitors in the gaming space. Xbox has to generate revenue and profits independently in order to continue running and Microsoft not shut the division down. That's why during these court hearings, the only important matter was only ever Xbox's current gaming marketshare, and not about how Microsoft was doing as a whole. Why do you think Phil Spencer has a CEO title?

But, how they're going about that, of course is up for debate. I personally want this consolidation to end.