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

[Ryuu96]

Doctor_MG said:

I think what people are failing to take into consideration is that it does not matter if MS puts their games on other streaming services. Or allows for the option. Because MS will OWN those IPs AND they have the second largest cloud infrastructure of any company (with only Amazon being ahead of them).

If they take a fee for call of duty being on a cloud service that's already less money that cloud service gets. In addition, the cloud service will not have the same competitive capacity as MS due to having less servers overall.

Therefore, MS can undercut all of these cloud gaming companies (as well as any gamepass like subscription models) by the pure fact that they now own (artificially) one of the most popular IPs on the planet. If a service needs 19.99 a month to survive, MS can do it for 17.99. Because they don't have to pay a fee to have access to Call of Duty.

Mark my words, in ten to fifteen years time we are going to see that gaming has become yet another oligopolistic structure, where nothing but the biggest fish can compete.

It kinda does matter, at least, it matters to Nvidia, Boosteroid, Ubitus, etc. They would not have signed these contracts and supported the acquisition if they didn't think they were good for their business even 10 years into the future. These deals give them a very large leg-up to focus on other aspects of growing their business and when that growth happens over 10 years, they will be in better positions to negotiate for other large IP. We've taken it into consideration but these companies still support the acquisition when they could have scuttled it, they aren't all stupid companies that have fallen for Microsoft's dastardly scheme, Lol.

Fact is as well, a Microsoft guarantee for 10 years is better than the current status quo which was Activision saying that have no interest in Cloud Gaming, Activision ripping their titles from Geforce Now, a "guarantee" commitment is better than a "maybe, who knows, make us an offer and we'll see" an offer which Ubitus and Boosteroid and other smaller services would be unlikely to afford.

ABK as an independent entity had no interest in this market and expressed that multiple times, but if they did suddenly become interested, what would stop Activision from simply selling COD licensing rights to the highest bidder? Absolutely nothing and given it's a scummy dude like Bobby, I'd say a high possibility.

Microsoft does have the 2nd largest Cloud infrastructure but that doesn't tell the full picture in this scenario because xCloud doesn't run off Azure, it runs off Xbox Hardware hosted in Azure datacentres, they need to physically place Xbox Hardware in all these data centres, as a result of this slow process, we can use an example of UK, in the UK, xCloud has a max capacity of 5,000 concurrent users...That is pathetic, Lol.

You can also say that Nvidia has an advantage because they actually build some of the components needed directly. GeForce Now has more titles available than xCloud. It has better latency than xCloud. It has better resolution and framerate than xCloud. It has better input lag than xCloud. So Microsoft's 2nd largest Cloud dominance ain't doing much for them here. Stadia was better than xCloud too, technically.

The Cloud Agreement between Microsoft and the European Commission is free: A corresponding free license to cloud game streaming service providers to allow EEA-based gamers to stream any Activision Blizzard's PC and console games.

The only money they'd make is from people buying the titles to stream them (GeForce Now, Boosteroid requires you to own a game first before streaming it, via digital stores such as Steam). GeForce's business model is a sub service.

See above for the "less servers" comment, less servers doesn't matter because it runs on Xbox hardware, GeForce Now and Stadia ran better than xCloud. While these streaming services have huge IPs from XGS/Zenimax/Activision-Blizzard they can also focus on upgrading their servers overtime and spreading further.

Right now, nobody but the biggest fish can compete in Cloud Gaming, at least the 10 year offer gives them a chance, Lol. We saw Google, a trillion dollar company, dip out because it was too expensive. We're seeing Amazon, a trillion dollar company, barely trying and likely to dip out next.

We've evidence from Microsoft through this trial that xCloud has been a failure, it is making a loss, it isn't reaching the numbers they wanted, Fortnite on Mobile through xCloud has been a disappoint for them internally (numbers wise). Phil spoke via email that nobody is interested in playing xCloud on their Mobile devices, they want native Mobile experiences. xCloud is hurting Xbox hardware stock, xCloud requires a ton of Xbox hardware and for all that only has a capacity of 5,000 concurrent users in UK. xCloud is still one of the worst performing Cloud streaming services precisely because they use Xbox hardware. Data from Microsoft shows that the vast majority use xCloud only to play a game while it's downloading on native hardware, Lol.

If this deal was blocked based on xCloud then Microsoft might as well have followed Google and closed it down.

If these trillion dollar companies are struggling, then what makes people think these smaller companies have such a great shot? Again, now they're getting ABK/XGS/Zenimax for free, so they have a fighting chance to turn the market into something viable because right now, it isn't, and if it does actually turn into something viable, then they'll be at the forefront of the competition.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 12 July 2023