By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Imaginedvl on 10 May 2023

Here is my Bingo card for the E3 2023:

Last edited by Imaginedvl - on 10 May 2023

Around the Network
G2ThaUNiT on 10 May 2023
Imaginedvl said:

Here is my Bingo card for the E3 2023:


Guerrilla Games is third-party now?



Leynos on 10 May 2023

I have finished the Xbox 360 Gears of War Trilogy. 3 is the best one. 1 has aged the worst. 2 felt like we want to go as big as possible. 3 combined the best of both worlds. Horror but also heavy action. Less Vehicle stuff. Seems everything was wrapped in a bow. So I guess 4 and 5 exist for the same reason Terminator sequels post 2 exist. They make money so have to make more.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

PixelPirate on 10 May 2023

I really think Gears 5 is a great game, including the Hyvebusters DLC. Gears 4 looks fine but is isnt anything more than just solid...



Imaginedvl on 10 May 2023
gtotheunit91 said:
Imaginedvl said:

Here is my Bingo card for the E3 2023:

Guerrilla Games is third-party now?

I had to :) Same for the Starfield console haha



Around the Network
VersusEvil on 10 May 2023
Imaginedvl said:
gtotheunit91 said:

Guerrilla Games is third-party now?

I had to :) Same for the Starfield console haha

You spelt Indie wrong ;)



Ride The Chariot || Games Complete ‘24 Edition

Imaginedvl on 10 May 2023
VersusEvil said:
Imaginedvl said:

I had to :) Same for the Starfield console haha

You spelt Indie wrong ;)

Damn it! Will edit it later and update it :)

Edit: done, maybe I was thinking about this Indiana Jones game, but I do not believe it will be shown.

Last edited by Imaginedvl - on 10 May 2023

Machiavellian on 10 May 2023
Ryuu96 said:
Machiavellian said:

If the EU approve, you still believe the deal is dead.  There are remedies that MS can pursue in the UK to get it done still.

Yes.

CMA wants the deal blocked. CAT doesn't look into the decision itself, they only look into whether the CMA acted irrationally, broke the law or broke procedure. In addition, no new evidence can be submitted to CAT, they only look into what was already submitted. Microsoft can't offer CMA anything new unless CAT throws it back to CMA.

Irrationality is their only course and it's an extremely high bar. Even IF (and it's a massive if), CAT throws it back to CMA, they'll find another reason to block the deal. The only extreme long-shot they have is ring-fencing but CMA have already stated they are acting as a global regulator so they'll want anything Microsoft does structurally to apply worldwide.

Deal is dead.

The CMA cannot act as the global regulator.  That gives the CMA way to much power.  As you stated, what can they stand on if the Cloud SLC no longer an issue.  It would be a huge overreach to try and then bring up something which was not part of the original decision.



Ryuu96 on 10 May 2023
Machiavellian said:
Ryuu96 said:

Yes.

CMA wants the deal blocked. CAT doesn't look into the decision itself, they only look into whether the CMA acted irrationally, broke the law or broke procedure. In addition, no new evidence can be submitted to CAT, they only look into what was already submitted. Microsoft can't offer CMA anything new unless CAT throws it back to CMA.

Irrationality is their only course and it's an extremely high bar. Even IF (and it's a massive if), CAT throws it back to CMA, they'll find another reason to block the deal. The only extreme long-shot they have is ring-fencing but CMA have already stated they are acting as a global regulator so they'll want anything Microsoft does structurally to apply worldwide.

Deal is dead.

The CMA cannot act as the global regulator.  That gives the CMA way to much power.  As you stated, what can they stand on if the Cloud SLC no longer an issue.  It would be a huge overreach to try and then bring up something which was not part of the original decision.

They technically can and they've already said so to Microsoft that they want the concessions to apply worldwide. They will simply argue that the concessions need to be worldwide because only applying the concessions to UK won't protect competition elsewhere which in turn WILL have an effect on UK markets too.

CMA has too much power.

The best chance Microsoft has, and probably only chance, is it CAT determines that Cloud Gaming isn't its own market.

If that happens then yeah it will be hard for CMA. They're clearly set on blocking the deal though, I've no doubt that they've wanted it blocked since it was announced and just tried to find an argument to fit it.

My understanding is that once it's sent back to CMA, the Phase 2 process can begin again and a different group inside of the CMA looks at the deal, new evidence can be submitted and new demands can be issued, the new group can come to different interpretations or the same one but it won't be as long as the first time since a lot of evidence is already there.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 10 May 2023

chakkra on 10 May 2023
Ryuu96 said:
Machiavellian said:

The CMA cannot act as the global regulator.  That gives the CMA way to much power.  As you stated, what can they stand on if the Cloud SLC no longer an issue.  It would be a huge overreach to try and then bring up something which was not part of the original decision.

They technically can and they've already said so to Microsoft that they want the concessions to apply worldwide. They will simply argue that the concessions need to be worldwide because only applying the concessions to UK won't protect competition elsewhere which in turn WILL have an effect on UK markets too.

CMA has too much power.

The best chance Microsoft has, and probably only chance, is it CAT determines that Cloud Gaming isn't its own market.

If that happens then yeah it will be hard for CMA. They're clearly set on blocking the deal though, I've no doubt that they've wanted it blocked since it was announced and just tried to find an argument to fit it.

My understanding is that once it's sent back to CMA, the Phase 2 process can begin again and a different group inside of the CMA looks at the deal, new evidence can be submitted and new demands can be issued, the new group can come to different interpretations or the same one but it won't be as long as the first time since a lot of evidence is already there.

If that was the case then all of the other regulators of the world would have just dropped the case on the spot, because now they would all just be wasting their time.
And how would that even work? How would an institution from a single country be able to enforce their will, if all the other institutions from around the globe get to a different resolution?