I would also say that MS has been all in on GP since they decided to bring GP to market.  MS is betting everything on the future where games are mostly provided to gamers through a service.  There internal emails shows that they are looking to be the Disney/Netflix of subscription games which lines up with MS as a company since all their software can be acquired through a service.  This really is in the expertise of MS as a company in general so its expected that Phil has gotten the whole of MS to buy in on this plan.

The CMA could tell MS to go fish but then again I doubt MS would also be pushing for this pause if they did not have a strong belief that they can settle with the CMA.  While MS may not have given the CMA their final proposal probably because it takes some administrative effort to do.  Its more likely that MS and the CMA can to some type of agreement that if this is done, it would alleviate the CMA concerns for a speedy settlement.

1. The quash business

Read the transcript, he wasn't suggesting the CMA April's decision is unreasonable and therefore, he was going to quash it. No, he was suggesting according to the CMA/MS joined statement about the restructured deal and the deal MS signed with SONY, it seemed to him we are in an entirely new territory where he believes the original CMA findings need to be quashed because they're historical and apply to a deal that is no longer on the table.

Followers of the stream, me included, initially thought he was just suggest a quash through which the acquisition is cleared, or a quash because the CMA findings were incorrect, but as it turns out, he was suggesting a path for the process to start over because the findings were historical. Both the CMA and MS argued strongly against taking the quashing path. (yes, you are right, he wasn't "offering", he was laying out possibilities, apologies, the words used here). 

MS and CMA lawyers argued that actually, there has always been a path in the books for MS to notify the CMA with new proposals and there has always been a path for the CMA to accept said proposals and review them following an expedited process, a chart/diagram/flowchart/algorithm was shown to the judge to prove this. 

2. "The judges having to identify mistakes done by the CMA that resulted in the quash was bad optics"

Actually, it would've been beautiful optics to see the CAT remitting the case to the CMA or telling them "you're being irrational". It would've shown that there is a path through the CMA if they were being irrational, and it would've shown that the system in place works and there is no reason to play dirty and get politicians to slander underpaid hardworking public sector workers.

I am one of the public and an objective look at the CMA work through its short lifespan tells you it spared the UK multiple domestic disasters, having the occasional decision being quashed or remitted by CAT and the process in place getting followed isn't going to waive anyone's trust. The CMA hasn't been engaged in delaying tactics or ended up with concerns different from the concerns the EC ended up with.

Some want us to believe that the CMA is so irrational it's so obvious for everyone to see, yet, MS preferred to not go ahead with the CAT hearings that literally could've started within days, this tells me they're not remotely confident in their ability to demonstrate how the CMA findings are irrational, and they'd settle with the CMA with a new restructured deal that the CMA still has the power to refuse (not going to happen). 

3. "There is no new deal" + "the CMA doesn't have the right to do that" 

Yes, I agree, I am not as careful as you are with choosing my words, you should be a lawyer. There is no new deal, there is a new proposal, a restructure, a concession. I don't know what to call it. Correct me if I am not wrong, both the CMA/MS have shown the judge the legal basis for how and why this new proposal should be considered already and that's why the conditional adjournment was given? 

Both MS/CMA lawyers spent considerable amount of time explaining to the judge the legal basis for what they're doing now. He accepted their reasoning and the legal basis for what they're doing, it's one of the reasons he's given them what they wanted in the end, he was satisfied. 

4. my previous comment: ""You are clearly very involved in this which makes the context you're providing for the "quash" disingenuous"".

Go through the transcript, at no point the judge was suggesting he was going to quash the CMA decision because of the reasons that you listed, you tried to shoehorn so many unsubstantiated claims using the mere possibility of a "quash" happening as an umbrella. The judge was engaging in discussion with CMA/MS lawyers through out, he asked to be explained why he should do what they were asking and not do other things like "quashing". 

I am not sure why you think I was attacking you? You're genuinely smart, and you have genuinely indulged in speculation in your post:

• "This means somewhere in phase 2 the CMA failed to give MS due process. Could be not arguing in good faith, not giving the proper signal upon proposed remedies so that MS can propose a stronger one or any others". 

The above is clear speculation, another unsubstantiated claim. In what way point this out is this an attack on you? 

5. The thing is the CMA enjoys quite large power in the UK way more so than any other jurisdiction, but it comes with a warning not to abuse it. Here the CMA is responsible to have fueled their detractors' arguments against themselves IMO. There's no way that when you have findings that baffle the vast majority of industry experts and have been obtained while making regular phone calls with the highly politically motivated FTC would not make others ask questions. 

The CAT is there to keep them in check, the CAT literally has the power to look at the CMA report and threw it in the trash, the CMA can't abuse their powers, the CMA haven't abused their power. 

The CMA was following the process, you haven't shown any evidence of this not being the case. To suggest they fuelled their detractors is victim blaming. 

The findings aren't so baffling, the fact MS chose to settle through a longer process instead of going ahead with the scheduled CAT hearings tell me they weren't confident in getting the outcome they needed. 

The CMA and the FTC has acted within the law by communicating with each other,  if I remember correctly, MS has given them the permission to communicate as well. There was nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think their communications are worth mentioning. 

6. Also, the CAT appeal path is extremely difficult as it requires finding the CMA either unlawful or so unreasonable literally no one else would conclude the same Which is the highest standard possible.

But you honestly believe that the CMA findings are so baffling and so unreasonable it's obvious for everyone to see, so why do you not expect the CAT to not see what you're seeing?

Don't say because it never happened before, previous cases the CMA won have no bearings on this one, the CAT wasn't going to judge this case based on how they judged previous ones. 

7. This exact behavior is so prevalent with the CMA that many companies abandon mergers instead of appealing to the CAT even though they might have a legitimate and strong case. This is not an example of a body with proper checks and balances that separation of power requires.

You will have to provide examples and show how the CMA abused their powers in those examples and how they were incorrect. This is way too generalised of a statement to make and in no way substantiate your claim that the CMA doesn't have proper checks and balances. 

OK this has gotten too long and too time-consuming so I will reply in parts and maybe complete another time. 

But first you mention read the transcript, I did listen to the audio live but the transcript is still not uploaded to the official site (at the time of writing this): https://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/159041223-microsoft-corporation

So if you have another source, please share.

Also, reading through your comment I can already address a few points where I think you misunderstood me:

By bad optics, I meant for the CMA alone. A quash is in all cases a loss for the CMA. 

Also, the judge was not actually saying he would quash the investigation on the spot, he was simply telling the CMA they had entered quash territory. The Judge had no power at that time to issue a quash, for that he would either have to wait for the proceeding completion(all the appeals) or accept a motion of summary judgment presented by MS or the CMA to bypass the in-person court case and be judged on paper. The judge here was simply heavily weighting denying the Stay motion to force the court case to proceed with the added note to the CMA that they had already lost some credibility in this.

It would happen Thursday if I recall, I think but MS had some issues disclosing information in regards to their dealing with the CMA that's why I think at one point they asked the public transmission to be stopped (But my memory is not as secure as I would like on this). I think the MS/CMA proposed to show evidence the day after but got pushed back to Thursday.

MS and CMA have not shown they have a legal basis but convinced the judge they do, that's why the decision was conditional.

It was not the issue here, there's is speculation and deduction which I substantiate to the best of my knowledge, that's not supposed to be an issue, this is all we can do literally in most case, however, the suggestion that I'm "involved in this which makes the context you're providing for the "quash" disingenuous. "

This means I acted partisanly against the CMA and so analyzed the situation through that prism. Discrediting me as a result and not the argument that I put forth. If I acted as such then arguing my argument correctly should make it transpire by itself.

My speculation themselves here is based mostly on the strong choice of words the judge had. basically telling the CMA he was about to not allow the stay and telling the CMA they were already losing before the appeal even began. Also the "Why didn’t you listen to these new proposals before?" you don't want to hear this from a judge addressed at you that's for certain. 

The rationality test is not solely reserved for the findings but for any decision the CMA has taken during the process. But also, that's not what I said, I was simply highlighting what you have to do to win an appeal against the CMA. 

In other jurisdictions like the US, it falls on the FTC to prove theirs a high likelihood of SLC, the CMA only to put forth an SLC theory and then it falls on the merging parties to prove their theory is so unreasonable no one else would conclude the same.

 If there's an area with the possibility to have found the CMA guilty of such it would have been with the refusal to accept remedy proposal as hard to monitor while other agencies were fine monitoring remedies. But even then I'm not believing the CMA would have been found unreasonable, just highlighting it may have been a possibility. Nonetheless, the CAT is also limited to rules on concerns raised by the merging party and I think those all focused on the lawfulness of the decision and not any reasonability test. So no the CMA would not have been found unreasonable in the end.

Did not say they have, just that their conclusions raised questions. Would you not raise questions if it were you the one that had attributed such power to the CMA to see them take a decision and have the vast majority of experts telling in the media the CMA decision did not make any sense?

The CMA has been quashed in multiple cases, but it never reached a different conclusion than its original finding. The CMA had already the reputation of being the one regulator to kill mergers. As the government, it's normal to start asking questions somewhere. Also, I truly don't know why you bring victim blaming here, the CMA is certainly not a victim of anything.

All evidence point to the CMA lending a deaf ear to MS's proposal to finally accept to negotiate, not the other way around, MS has stated since the beginning they were resolved to find solutions with the CMA (and again this is also supported by logics, there's no way MS value the cloud gaming scene in UK more so than this transaction, the CMA should always have been able to get appropriate concession on this SLC). That's why the judge told the CMA "Why didn’t you listen to these new proposals before?".

My memory might not be accurate here, but didn't MS point to the high level of communication between the CMA and FTC in the pre-hearing phase of the CAT appeal to show both were not just exchanging information but coordinating? It may have been from another source, I'll look that one up another day.

I believe one of the biggest issues that was exposed by the judge in the pause of the CAT is why did the CMA only now after the loss to the FTC decide to look at another proposal from MS.

I am going to go out on a limb and say this is not a new proposal to the CMA, MS has always offered it but the CMA did not care until after the FTC loss and then they wanted to come to a settlement. MS or course only care about the outcome not trying to make the CMA look bad so they will tell the judge whatever is necessary to get the CMA to settle on a new structure.

One of the biggest complaints and differences that seem to be with the CMA compared to the EU is that the EU voiced all their concerns and worked with MS for solutions. The CMA never voiced any concerns nor worked with the merging companies. They just came to a conclusion and they threw out a ruling. Basically the judge was asking why are we here when these options should have been investigated before the CMA came to their final report. The simple answer is that the CMA did not care until they found themselves on an island and had to consider new options.

We’re already seeing a positive from this as Microsoft has apparently put in the effort of fixing matchmaking on the old BC Call of Duty titles and they’re all working again. In preparation of them coming to GamePass I guess.

I bought World at War and MW3 since they are on sale, they both play fucking great on Series X.

Apparently MS didn’t touch the PC or PS3 versions.

@EpicRandy The legal basis has been explained by both sides of the aisle and was satisfactory to the judge, what wasn't shown or explained well to the judge is the material change of circumstances that made them ask for the trial to be adjourned, as a result, he asked for a written testimony from the CMA, Mr Beard (MS lawyer) said they would help the CMA out with the testimony by sending them the SONY CoD details.

The testimony, that must have been handed today, is required to satisfy the judge on the "MCC" or the material change of circumstances, this is the only reason that the adjournment is/was conditional. Always happy to be corrected but even the written ruling by the judge mentions that he was satisfied and just waiting for the testimony now (which he asked for so he could understand the MCC). 

my dude, thanks for the discussions along.... literally years now? Lmao.

I have never believed in any outcome but the merger going through (put my money where my mouth was as well), I still don't think it's the right path, short term certain gains should never justify probabilities of bigger harm, no matter how distant they might be, you see, our differences are fundamental, so naturally, we are unlikely to ever see eye to eye on this. I will admit that MS is being singled out with this merger, not because they're different or special, it seems this all happened because Lina met her match in the newly appointed Sarah, I hope they continue to work together despite the losses. 

I can't keep up with the back and forth anymore, especially when I am on the losers' side

Enjoy the outcome. 

It is pretty funny seeing 10+ year old CoD games being the best sellers on Xbox right now it's good to see so many gamers enjoying a bit of fully functioning nostalgia.

We are actually saying the same thing on the first part, but you added precision, thanks.

I don't believe our position is fundamentally different though, I am all for more and stronger regulation and more power to resolve conditions for entities that have outgrown competition in their respective market, we just differ on the way to get there and our difference is somewhat magnified through the lens of this deal.

If streaming takes over gaming it may be "good" for the consumer in terms of getting access to a ton of content for a relatively low price, but it will probably be bad for the industry (studios) in general.

The same as is it with Netflix basically ... I mean sure it's nice for the consumer to not have to pay $20 for each DVD/Blu-Ray movie and having the movies always digital on demand without having to get off the couch and even change discs is nice. But that model is not as good of a money making setup as the old traditional way movies were sold was (which is part of the reason why there's a strike now in Hollywood for writers and actors because the writers and actors are not getting their fair share residuals, in many cases they're getting no residuals from streaming services). 

But like I said it's hard to feel sorry for Sony in all this because they've been a right asshole for moneyhatting content away from competitors every chance they got, so right now it's like seeing the jerk off in the club who goes around hitting on every girl finally catch one in the face by an angry boyfriend, lol.