We already know what Google is worried about is Activision-Blizzard potentially spearheading a new mobile marketplace and the threat of them using Candy Crush to achieve this compelled Google to offer ABK hundreds of millions of dollars not to do so, and they're just one of a couple dozen companies Google paid off to do this, that's the exact opposite what the FTC's goals are. They're supposed to protect competition in interrst for consumers and not protect dominant market forces from having any competition.
If Google and Nvidia bring up their streaming services that might undermine the FTCs own claim about the number of streaming service competitors in the market and MS having a dominant foothold in it. Plus Nvidia's service streams content from different platforms user libraries they have entitlements verified through as a means of accessing their games through cloud streaming, so if users sync say their Steam libraries to Nvidia's service they'll still have access to the same games Microsoft already releases on Steam to their Nvidia streaming service. And I'm sure MS and even Valve will be more than happy to let Nvidia's virtual servers initialize and run 250GB games each use at the user's whim, MS certainly has no desire to do so and have already expressed such. This also gives Nvidia a chance to do what no other Streaming service can or will do right now despite MS maybe owning COD.
On the other end maybe Nvidia feels more threatened by MS developing their games and making better use of AMDs APIs (so they make most out of Xbox and PlayStation performance) and maybe that threatens Nvidia's PC dominant position for PC graphics cards and devs who prioritize games built around their APIs.
Anyhow late but not surprised, Google at least was a respondent to the other territorial oversight to the merger. Not sure if l've been aware of Nvidia being involved in any of the previous regulatory oversights.
Log in to comment