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

241–250 of 490 posts

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#241

Post by stale2002 »

Pufferbo wrote: post #222
Aeolun wrote: post #172

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’…

> since I guess it’s okay for big ass companies to buy one another now.

Thats not really the case, no. Sony is the monopoly market leader in the console space right now.

It would be more likely to be illegal for Sony to do this, and it is not illegal for microsoft to do the same, because Microsoft is not the monopoly market leader in the console space.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#242

Post by wilg »

TheCaptain4815 wrote: post #230
wilg wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn’t that practically the definition of “anti consumer”behavior - A company division being bailed out by another because of its ineptness? 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.

“Anti consumer” is a catch all phrase with no legal relevance that people use to describe whatever behavior they don’t like from companies. The issue here would be “anti competitive” or “anti trust”, the definitions of which the judge certainly is aware of.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#243

Post by stale2002 »

madeofpalk wrote: post #191
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 otherwi…

> just to prop up their efforts and otherwise restrict consumers.

Consumers aren't being restricted.

Quite the opposite, Microsoft purchasing this IP is causes them to release those games on more platforms. All activision games with be on Gamepass, steam, as well consoles when that wasn't automatically the case before.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#244

Post by nwiswell »

rpvnwnkl wrote: post #214
Aeolun wrote: post #172

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?

Im hoping Microsoft will altruistically stop producing these addictive “games”. As a new console player, the differences between a game like Halo Infinite and Overwatch (FPS 4v4/5v5) are enough to put me from playing and in control to binging. Here’s a tangent: The most popular sports leagues in the world are mimicked by people all over the world who play casual and team sports. The game itself is not proprietary. Wh…

> Why can’t we make popular open source video games?

Well, there are some. Check out Bitburner, Battle for Wesnoth, 0 A.D, etc.

The serious answer is that it's very hard work that requires a multi-year development cycle and a diverse variety of talent (design, art, etc) in addition to software engineering.

In addition, a lot of the tools and game engines used to create AAA titles are very expensive (and closed-source).

If you've got a team working on a game in just their spare time, it's going to be very dated by the time it actually launches.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#245

Post by sundvor »

sundvor wrote: post #140
lockhouse wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There really isn't a Nintendo-Sony duopoly. They don't really compete with each other. It's a handheld game system with the ability to dock and work with a TV. The hardware and its gaming capabilities are very different. There is almost no overlap in the games available to each console. Nintendo stopped competing on high performance hardware several generations ago. It competes like a Honda Civic competes with a Chev…

Side comment, but I think you may underestimate the Civic (Type R). Of course the C7 is still on top, but still.. Both in 2017: 7:13.9 - Chevrolet Corvette C7 Z06 Christian Gebhardt. 7:43.8 - Civic Type R, Honda didn't name the driver. Having said that the Nintendo Switch competes against the Series X in my home for time . It has some seriously good titles that my son loves to play.

I forgot to say these were Nordschleife lap times. It's about a serious test of both driver and car as you get.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#246

Post by CivBase »

htrp wrote: post #29

>The court ruling even agrees with Microsoft in theory about the Nintendo Switch being part of the console market, but also accepts the FTC can reasonably claim it’s not. How is the Switch not a console?

It is. The court is basically saying here "We'll accept your argument that the Switch isn't in the same market because it doesn't matter. You're wrong either way."

They do this again later on in regards to the FTC's arguments that cloud gaming and multi-game subscription services are functionally separate markets.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#247

Post by dnissley »

failuser wrote: post #207
dnissley wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just it though -- video games are not "monopolized" in any meaningful sense. A particular IP may be "monopolized" -- e.g. owned by a particular company that has more or less of an interest in producing cross platform versions. But that's not really a monopoly, is it?

Sony and Microsoft are buying game developers left and right. Will the courts allow Microsoft to buy Sony gaming business? Microsoft is also getting ready to eat Steam’s lunch for a while on the PC side. Will that be allowed to go through?

> Will the courts allow Microsoft to buy Sony gaming business?

Why not? What would it matter to the players on these consoles? Is demand for certain titles so price insensitive that Microsoft could then jack up the price by 100% and people would still buy them? Even if that's true (it's almost certainly not) the barriers to entry in the video game business are extremely low, so this would just create an enormous opportunity and pissed off consumers would jump to a newly created platform.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#248

Post by vkou »

TheCaptain4815 wrote: post #224

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…

> What a joke. Because Microsoft is now failing as a gaming company the past 10 years, they’ve been allowed to swallow up competiton.

And why not? If Wal-Mart gets a failing games division, I don't see why it should be stopped from buying Activision, either.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#249

Post by firebirdn99 »

dnissley wrote: post #205
firebirdn99 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For one, lack of consumer choice. To play those games, I would need to buy an Xbox, whereas for the last 20 years, Call of Duty, etc. has been multiplatform.

That's literally one game. That's it. Lack of consumer choice when it comes to a single title shouldn't be something that the FTC is getting involved in. Even when you expand that to all the titles that activision/blizzard produce we're talking a tiny drop in a literal ocean of consumer choice.

Activision has dozens of famous titles, and a huge IP catalog from the 80's which they can make 100's of exclusives. The $68 Billion price tag tells itself of it's importance in gaming.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#250

Post by tills13 »

ScoobleDoodle wrote: post #176
tnel77 wrote: post #173

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.

So a mobile game (not relevant to Sony), a PC game (not relevant to Sony), and a PC game (...)
Post reply on HN