221–230 of 490 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Activision’s portfolio of games aren’t that great. I think we’ll be fine.
Activision / Blizzard / King includes: Candy Crush, World of Warcraft, and Diablo which are all heavy hitters.
This is weird. The judge says that because there won’t be any anticompetitive effects in the next 10 years (because MS made a pinky promise), this merger is fine? What about after those 10 years? What about anything not Call of Duty?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Playstation is doing well. Switch is doing great. For now. Fortunes change pretty quick in the console world. One generation you are on top, the next you are struggling for second place. MS buying Activision is bad. This gives MS a long term advantage. It signals to companies like Sony and Nintendo that they shouldn’t bother competing since they can never counter the buying out of huge publishers as they aren’t wor…
Ehh I think this allows microsoft to catch up. I think they were the laggards in the console war.
Buying up one of the biggest publishers though. What’s Sony and Nintendo, whose combined market cap is less than 7% of MS’s, suppose to do? I don’t see how allowing “big money Pay 2 Win without a fight” in anyway benefits the consumer.
Practically every game they’ve released or worked on the past 5 years has failed. Halo Infinite might literally be the biggest flop in entertainment history.
Because of Azure they’re able to absorb these losses and continue to consolidate and eat the competiton.
There’s tons of examples in the past of gaming studios that underperform and end up downsizing - Sega is a great example.
Meanwhile, Sony and Nintendo continue to release quality titles knowing they have no infinite money backing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 10 year guarantee means nothing as I can see Microsoft crippling non-Xbox versions of CoD - e.g. it has poorer performance on PS5.
The 10 year guarantee includes similar performance promises. I don't know how enforceable they are.
This is weird. The judge says that because there won’t be any anticompetitive effects in the next 10 years (because MS made a pinky promise), this merger is fine? What about after those 10 years? What about anything not Call of Duty?
10 years is also nothing in game development. Games now can take up to 7 years from conception to release, and then there is post release content. Based on the “10 years”, that would mean like what, 1 game out of each series would be cross platform? And for Sony, they would need to start developing a competent competitor to Call of Duty immediately. Or Sony could just buy EA and create a Titanfall 3 since I guess it’…
Unfortunately that’s just the standard. I mean look at AT&T.
What a joke. Because Microsoft is now failing as a gaming company the past 10 years, they’ve been allowed to swallow up competiton. Practically every game they’ve released or worked on the past 5 years has failed. Halo Infinite might literally be the biggest flop in entertainment history. Because of Azure they’re able to absorb these losses and continue to consolidate and eat the competiton. There’s tons of examples…
They ruined bethesda, they're going to ruin... Oh wait bliz is already optimized for money and delivering garbage content
What a joke. Because Microsoft is now failing as a gaming company the past 10 years, they’ve been allowed to swallow up competiton. Practically every game they’ve released or worked on the past 5 years has failed. Halo Infinite might literally be the biggest flop in entertainment history. Because of Azure they’re able to absorb these losses and continue to consolidate and eat the competiton. There’s tons of examples…
Well that’s the idea, isn’t it? If you’re not doing well in your business you aren’t being anti-competitive by trying to buy your way back into the game. Hence, the decision to allow it.
It’s one thing for Microsoft to continue to pump money into Xbox (look at Amazon and Alexa). It’s another for them to simply purchase the competition.