Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 490 posts

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#191

Post by madeofpalk »

collinc777 wrote: post #186

Is this hyper-competitive or anti-competetive? The objective of business is to win, but if a business is too dominant, then they have the ability to extort customers. I don't see how customer extortion is born out of this. It's fair and in the spirit of a healthy ecosystem.

I think Microsoft’s reason for why they feel they need this is exactly the reason why this is bad.

Shouldn’t Microsoft build a compelling cloud gaming service that both customers want to pay for, and publishers want to publish on? Microsoft should build good gaming hardware and services, and people buy them based on the merits of those products rather than acquiring companies just to prop up their efforts and otherwise restrict consumers.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#192

Post by charcircuit »

AlexandrB wrote: post #93
zamalek wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm hoping for more along the lines of what happened with Mojang. Whatever Microsoft did there really worked.

All I know about that is I tried to migrate my Mojang account to Microsoft - when Microsoft started "unifying logins" - and I still haven't heard back from them. So my experience has been negative. Hopefully they don't try to migrate Battle.net accounts in the future.

FYI you have 2 months to migrate your account before they delete it. You will have to repurchase the game on a new account if you ever want to play it again if you don't migrate it by September 19th.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#193

Post by failuser »

dnissley wrote: post #65

I find the whole thing to be a tempest in a teapot -- why is the FTC involved in this at all? For christ's sake it's a video game! If we were discussing access to some critical resource I would understand, but how is this not a criminal waste of our government's time and resources? It reminds me of the congressional baseball steroid hearings. Am I totally off base here? Can anyone explain to me why this case is so cr…

Games are bigger than most movies. Besides, gaming was responsible for a lot of innovation in computing, we all know how well that will go under a Microsoft monopoly.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#194

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

lesuorac wrote: post #129
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe Microsoft should argue this point instead. But they didn't. They argued that they would allow CoD on multi-platforms so it's only reasonable to expect people to respond to that point. That's just basic business. If I buy a shoe factory, I'm going to say of course I'll sell them to Canadians! I wouldn't say "Eh, stuff it Canada, go make your own shoes!" even if my own internal plans didn't prioritize exports.

But there's nothing dishonest with Canada trying to block the purchase on the shoe factory on the grounds that they don't believe you'll actually sell to them considering they legitimately don't believe you. Perhaps you may feel that Canadians can be responsible for making their own shoe companies that sell to Canada. Then bring up that as your argument instead of having "oh yeah, I'll totally sell to you" as your ar…

What is dishonest about MS buying Activision? Something that hasn’t happened yet but you are judging them on regardless?

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#195

Post by kevingadd »

throwaway202351 wrote: post #166

Maybe it's just sour grapes from me, but it feels like a lot of these acquisitions are for has-been companies that were great 10+ years ago but haven't had much success lately. Bethesda, Double Fine, and now Activation Blizzard.

No comment on Bethesda or Activision, but Psychonauts 2 had an average Metacritic score of ~90. Not sure how their financials look but Double Fine seems to be doing OK. Their previous two titles had shakier scores but don't look like they were big failures or anything.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#196

Post by majormajor »

abduhl wrote: post #60
coldpie wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lina Khan and the FTC have been brazenly bought and sold by a foreign company and weaponized against US consumers Speaking of spreading misinformation, do you have anything to back that claim up?

Sure: you can see it by reviewing the filings by the FTC in the case FTC v. Microsoft Corp. at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67494594/federal-trade-... Pay special attention to the theories of harm advanced by the FTC and note that the harm focused on by the FTC is that done to a foreign company (Sony) rather than US consumers.

The FTC has openly stated their going to be more aggressive fighting acquisitions in general to test the limits of the current law, and has pursued other cases as part of that strategy too that aren't "advancing the interests of a foreign company."

You believe Microsoft's claims that this will be good for consumers. I don't. I believe the FTC's claims that "bad for their main competitor" = "bad for consumers." You don't. Fine.

But their actions here are entirely consistent with their stated platform and you haven't provided a shred of evidence that there's any of the behind-the-scenes bullshit you claim.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#197

Post by maroonblazer »

AlexandrB wrote: post #89
xxpor wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economics are different: Redfall isn't a huge name, so it's more valuable for MS to get people into the game pass subscription than the comparatively piddly incremental one-time revenue they'd get from releasing it on PS5. CoD on the other hand is already a huge name, that releases every year (i.e. recurring revenue, even if it's not a subscription per se), and MS is paying a huge premium for it. Forcing people o…

There's so much speculation about motives here. Neither you nor I have any idea what Microsoft's business strategy is. All I can judge them on is their actions. And their actions are buying up large publishers and making their most anticipated games exclusive to the Xbox. Sure Redfall was a somewhat minor release (and a mess), but what about Starfield? The game is hyped up to hell and now an Xbox exclusive as well.

Minecraft proves the parent's point. Following your logic, Microsoft should've made Minecraft an exclusive. They didn't. In fact they're expanding the footprint, rolling it out to Chromebooks last month.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#198

Post by madeofpalk »

glimshe wrote: post #91

This is a great decision for the US game industry. Sony has a ton of exclusives, many from acquisitions, and strengthening XBOX will help maintain a competitive gaming market which should lead to even better exclusives in the long run. Some of the best rivalries in the history of gaming came from different sides with hard hitting exclusives (SNES vs Genesis for instance). While Microsoft has promised to keep Call of…

Maybe we can put aside the superficial sports-team rivalries for a moment.

Maybe both Microsoft and Sony could develop good products that consumers and publishers want to pay money for, rather than make unrelated, restrictive business deals!

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#199

Post by kevingadd »

strictnein wrote: post #174
sgillen wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the StarCraft guys have already left and formed their own company (frost giant). They are making a quasi spiritual successor to StarCraft called StormGate.

Maybe it'll be great but this doesn't inspire confidence: > Stormgate® is a _free-to-play_ real-time strategy PC game...

Single-purchase retail like Starcraft 1 & 2 simply doesn't make sense as an exclusive revenue source for small studios anymore, you're not likely to sell enough copies. The revenue isn't there. You've got to sell cosmetics, battle passes, or (barf) put in a gacha system. I'm not happy about it as a game dev but it's the reality. Even big games like Destiny 2 rely heavily on those microtransactions to rake in the cash. :(

This is especially bad for multiplayer where you need high player counts so people can get into matches quick. Indie multiplayer games HAVE to be free or very inexpensive.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#200

Post by majormajor »

dnissley wrote: post #85
Larrikin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're totally off base. Video games are not just kids stuff. The industry makes nearly three times more money than the film industry. This is exactly the kind of stakes that FTC should be getting involved in.

Both of these industries are entertainment though -- and to me at least it seems there's a pretty limited amount of consumer harm that could come from various IP exclusivity deals. Again -- am I thinking about this wrong? What is the consumer harm that could result from the moving of IP from one company to another? A truly dedicated fan has to buy a different console to play their favorite game? Non-truly dedicated f…

Why does it matter that it's entertainment?

If at some point consumers have to pay more than they would in a more competitive market, how is that not harm? If you believe that this is a move that will result in less consumer choice and more possibility for MS to extract more $$$$, then you don't like it.

Post reply on HN