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

311–320 of 490 posts

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#311

Post by ikekkdcjkfke »

zamalek wrote: post #80
AlexandrB wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how Microsoft has managed Bethesda (giving them a large amount of autonomy and shipping the doomed Redfall) it's way too optimistic to expect any positive changes for Activision/Blizzard customers. It wouldn't surprise me is Bobby kept running the whole thing, just under Microsoft's ownership. Meanwhile I do expect more Xbox exclusives - which will ultimately harm consumers.

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

Developers. Developers, developers, developers. Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers, developers...

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#312

Post by cman1444 »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #297

The real issue is Sony has many exclusives which gives Microsoft a better case (despite the judge saying it's NOT about Sony). It certainly harms consumers, so I don't see how the court still approved this especially with the judge's comment against the comparison to Sony. Almost all mergers of this size harm consumers, the fact that it's allowed by default is the crucial issue. If the FTC still had a spine they woul…

I disagree with the opinion that it harms consumers. The economist has an article it recently published that argues that this deal actually helps consumers by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming as an option. I tend to agree. Just because one large company is buying another large company doesn't mean the deal should be blocked.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#313

Post by NovaDudely »

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…

While some decent examples have been provided in another response, it is kind of telling when most Libre/open multiplayer FPS titles are still built on Quake 3 engine. And they are not exactly to most vibrant communities. But it will run on almost anything form the last 20 years I guess.

I think a part of it is that the video game industry is good at absorbing a lot of people with talent. Game folks are at the intersection of arts and technology but it also isn't firmly in either camp, so people can be poached away fairly easily from open projects if they have a lot of talent.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#314

Post by NovaDudely »

cman1444 wrote: post #312
KingMachiavelli wrote: post #297

The real issue is Sony has many exclusives which gives Microsoft a better case (despite the judge saying it's NOT about Sony). It certainly harms consumers, so I don't see how the court still approved this especially with the judge's comment against the comparison to Sony. Almost all mergers of this size harm consumers, the fact that it's allowed by default is the crucial issue. If the FTC still had a spine they woul…

I disagree with the opinion that it harms consumers. The economist has an article it recently published that argues that this deal actually helps consumers by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming as an option. I tend to agree. Just because one large company is buying another large company doesn't mean the deal should be blocked.

> argues that this deal actually helps consumers

I'm listening...

> by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming

Ewww... no thanks!

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#315

Post by 10u152 »

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #306
nwiswell wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

https://www.beyondallreason.info/ as well.

Shoutout to the best RTS I've played in years.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#316

Post by manuelabeledo »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #262
tourmalinetaco wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess it’s okay for big ass companies to buy one another now. Unfortunately that’s just the standard. I mean look at AT&T.

And yet ATT ($109B market cap) is in last place, quite a bit behind Tmobile ($168B) and Verizon ($147B).

This is why market capitalisation is not always the best of metrics.

AT&T assets are valued at almost twice of T-Mobile (~$400B vs ~$211B). AT&T is also ahead of Verizon (~$377B) by a nice margin. It’s also right behind Verizon in revenue, and ahead of T-Mobile ($136B for Verizon, $120B for AT&T, and $80B for T-Mobile).

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#317

Post by NovaDudely »

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... I give them 3.

Either they will just break the deal and pay the fines (I'm not sure of the exact details of the punishment) or they will just give themselves enough technical advantage to make the competition versions unfavorable.

I mean, we don't question a Tiger when it eats someones face - it is just what a Tiger does. This is just how Microsoft and big business works.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#318

Post by manuelabeledo »

willis936 wrote: post #231
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?

What about it? Will the FTC rule that SqEnix titles must be released on Xbox?

A more accurate comparison would be to force Sony to release their exclusive titles on Xbox.

Sony does not own Square-Enix.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#319

Post by doikor »

tremorscript wrote: post #298

The judges son works for Microsoft. This is not only conflict of interest but corruption at its absolute core. I knew the FTC would lose this case. I am not surprised. It does not matter if the FTC had a case or not. I do not believe it received a fair trail.

FTC knew the judges son works at Microsoft and this court/judge was pretty much their choice (Microsoft wanted a different judge in a different jurisdiction)

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#320

Post by dybber »

swyx wrote: post #308
dathinab wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like Facebook/WhatsApp which committed to not do some things and that certain things aren't even technically possible (which even back then was a lie) to get the merger through in the EU and then a few years later was, oh that, yep, let's ignore it and just turn it into a long legal battle which will anyway cost us far less then what we gain from it.

what has fb gained from whatsapp? theyre not charging for it right?

One big competitor less to worry about
Post reply on HN