Game Pass Ultimate includes EA Play. They also mentioned how you will be able to stream "selected PC games from Game Pass" over Geforce now whereas my PC Game Pass app tells me how I can stream "over 100 consoles games" over the cloud so maybe GeForce now won't get all PC Game Pass games to stream if you only have the standard Game Pass sub. 

But no clue... 

Forgot about EA Play, certainly makes GPU more desirable if you care for EA titles.

About "selected PC games" it'll likely be 1st party only, remember a lot of publishers ripped their titles from GFN and it's not Microsoft's right to choose what games are available on GFN if they don't own the IP unless they re-negotiate every single 3rd party on Game Pass and include GFN as an option but that's unlikely. So to begin with it'll probably be Xbox IP and then maybe 3rd parties on a case by case basis.

I forget about EA Play being part of Game Pass Ultimate all the time as well. 

Also, you'll still be bound to single-player experience on those titles while GPU provides Live Gold.

there's always the possibility that MS brings Xcloud on the basic game pass as well, if I recall correctly when they ended to closed alpha phase and added it to GPU they stated it was an open beta.

Xbox please hire some of these Barbie marketing people... They know what they're doing. 

Bruh....the 1999 Halo demo is now playable! 

Microsoft's Response: 23-07-14 Microsoft opposition to FTC emergency motion for injunction - DocumentCloud

Second, the FTC's claimed emergency is entirely of its own creation. Microsoft and Activision first notified the FTC of the merger on February 1, 2022. Op.19. The Commission filed an administrative complaint challenging the merger on December 8, 2022. Op.20. Breaking from its standard practice in merger cases, the FTC did not file a federal court complaint seeking a preliminary injunction at that time. On the contrary, it set its administrative hearing for August 2, 2023—after the merger agreement's termination date. Thus, the FTC acted for the better part of a year and a half as though this case was not an emergency necessitating federal court intervention. The parties and the Court face a time crunch because—and only because—"the FTC did not file this action to preliminarily enjoin the merger until June 12, 2023—less than six weeks before the termination date." Op.20.

I mean, can't really argue against this, Lol. It's an issue entirely created by the FTC. Microsoft spitting nothing but facts here.

The FTC now perversely responds that the pro-consumer benefit of increasing access to Call of Duty is somehow anticompetitive because only one subscription service, Xbox's Game Pass, will have Call of Duty post-merger. Mot.14-15. But that is one more subscription service than the FTC's own expert predicted would have Call of Duty absent the mer-ger. In characterizing this unambiguously pro-consumer outcome as an- ticompetitive, the FTC commits the cardinal sin of antitrust: mistaking a competitive disadvantage for a particular competitor (namely, the mar- ket-dominant Sony) with harm to competition and consumers. See Bruns- wick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 488 (1977); Op.39 (characterizing post-merger expansion of Activision content to new plat- forms and delivery mechanisms as "[p]erhaps bad for Sony. But good for Call of Duty gamers and future gamers").

The FTC's reliance on Heinz for this point is ironic given that the injunction granted in Heinz did, in fact, kill the proposed merger. See FTC v. H.J. Heinz Co., 164 F. Supp. 2d 659, 659 (D.D.C. 2001) (noting that the company "announced publicly within hours of the Court of Appeals' decision [granting a preliminary injunction] that it had abandoned its plans to acquire Beech-Nut Foods").

Regardless, any quibbles about the precise phrasing of the legal standard are irrelevant because the district court repeatedly found that the FTC had no evidence to support its claims of harm, meaning that they would have failed under any plausible standard. See, e.g., Op.33-38 (explaining why, for eight different reasons plus an additional reason "not necessary to the Court's finding," the "evidence points to no incentive to foreclose [Sony]"); Op.40 ("overwhelming evidence of the combined firm's lack of incentive to pull Call of Duty from PlayStation"); Op.41 (FTC's expert's opinions "not based on evidence"); Op.49 (lack of "explanation, let alone evidence" why Activision would put its game on subscription services); Op.50 (similar, as to cloud). It is telling that the FTC's incomplete and revisionist narrative does not contain a single citation to the district court's factual findings, which "may not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous."