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.

User Requested removal

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.

User Requested removal

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.