There's this fallacy being propagated here that #Microsoft's 10-year cloud gaming deals--such as the one announced today with --allegedly don't work for cloud gaming providers economically because they don't get the 30% cut that platforms get when games are distributed by them.
1. It's implausible that the #CMA's Inquiry Group, which simply doesn't understand tech markets at all, would be more sophisticated about this than a major player like #Nvidia, which signed such an agreement and is vocally supporting the acquisition of ABK (still yesterday!). I trust Nvidia--not the CMA--that they can put together a correct cost/benefits calculation.
2. Cloud gaming and particularly streaming is a different business model than that of an app store. There are revenue models for streaming (such as advertising). One of many problems with the CMA decision is that they conflate the two and consider game distribution to be a monetization model for streaming. But in a Bring Your Own Game scenario, it's obvious that the game is distributed outside the streaming service. Streaming services never had the right to tax game makers! A reasonable competition regulator would focus on access: do the streaming services and the players get to stream? The answer is yes.
3. The 30% app store cut is not a natural right but simply imposed by platforms using their gatekeeper power. It's even the subject of litigation (such as the UK class action named PlayStation You Owe Us) and regulatory intervention (with respect to mobile app stores so far, not consoles). Anyone suggesting that it is a "natural right" is wrong. #Sony just wants to preserve a business model that allows it to tax game makers to the tune of 30%.
4. What is, however, an indisputable right is intellectual property. There is no reason why Microsoft should pay for ABK's IP and then have to share it with anyone else. What Microsoft's deals are about is access.