Microsoft's deal with Ubisoft answers the CMA's objections over Activision Blizzard | Opinion

gamesindustry.biz:

In the future, will we be streaming our video games rather than downloading them?

And if that were to happen, is Microsoft destined to become the all-powerful force in video games?

Those are the two questions that sit at the heart of the CMA's decision to block Microsoft's bid to buy Activision Blizzard.

And both questions don't have a definite answer. Right now, people are not streaming games. Not really. But one glance at TV and music suggests that it's something that could happen.

If that future was to come to pass, there's no denying that Microsoft would be in a prime position to do very well. It has a powerful global cloud infrastructure, it has a huge catalogue of games, a large portfolio of people making games, it has a popular PC operating system to leverage, and, of course, Xbox.

But could it dominate the market? The data right now suggests it could, but that's because Microsoft is the only player with a games line-up worth a jot actually doing anything significant in this space. Would the data be the same if Sony improved and pushed its cloud streaming service? Or if Nintendo started streaming its games?

It's a market that doesn't really exist, so any data out there doesn't really tell us anything.

Yet the regulators have been stung before. They've made decisions that seemed fine on paper, only for them not to be down the line. I can see why they're being cautious and sceptical. I can also see why they might go 'we're 95% sure this is fine, but just in case it isn't, we're going to say no'.

Microsoft's counter to the streaming concerns has been to hand out the Activision Blizzard line-up to other streaming services on 10-year agreements. How could buying Activision allow them to dominate streaming when