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

321–330 of 490 posts

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#321

Post by W4RH4WK55 »

darknavi wrote: post #2

Microsoft employee here, opinions my own. I work in gaming at Microsoft and I really enjoy it. I think Microsoft gives us a ton of space to explore and make our own impact and I am a huge fan* of Phil Spencer. > Microsoft’s acquisition of Activision has been described as the largest in tech history. It deserves scrutiny. That scrutiny has paid off: Microsoft has committed in writing, in public, and in court to keep C…

A bit of a loaded question, but how do you feel about xbox f-in up major titles like Halo Infinite and Phil Spencer just saying "yep, we are sorry, that's on me". When a) there doesn't seem to be any change in quality assurance (see Redfall) and b) the devs still take the hit (see 343).

To me it's incomprehensible how they managed to f-up Halo Infinite, then just stand there in silence and then say, yeah we are sorry for not having a lot of interesting titles on Xbox, but here's what's coming next year.

If I were a game dev at Microsoft, I'd be furious!

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#322

Post by cwkoss »

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.

were all heavy hitters

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#323

Post by doikor »

majormajor wrote: post #190
xxpor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be incredibly stupid for MS to make CoD an xbox exclusive and completely misses the business case for buying Activision in the first place. Remember, MS is in business to make money , not to win the console wars. Buying the CoD (etc) IP at an inflated price and then immediately cutting off more than half of the revenue would be so mind-boggingly stupid, almost to the point of malpractice. This is why they re…

If MS doesn't care about winning the console wars why don't they just stop making Xboxes entirely? Microsoft's subscription push can't work without winning the console wars since Sony isn't about to let them put GamePass on PS since that kills Sony's revenue model. (That would itself be a very interesting antitrust case.) So they still want to win the console wars, they just want to monetize that victory differently.…

Because they want to sell their games without paying a 30% cut to someone (Sony/Nintendo/Valve/Apple/Google/etc) if possible. Also getting the 30% cut from someone else selling on their platform is really nice.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#324

Post by topkai22 »

NovaDudely wrote: post #314
cman1444 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I love Xbox game pass streaming, for many of the reasons I like streaming music, tv, and movies. It’s cheap to try things- I can fire up a new game without waiting to download 40+ GB. If the play engages me I’ll keep playing, if not I’ll move on.

I’m not a very good with high speed games anyways, so the increased latency isn’t generally noticeable in the games I play.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#325

Post by elefanten »

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.

There are laws and case law that set standards of varying degrees of precedent that both parties and the judge need to form their arguments around. The losing side can appeal to other courts and, in this case, the FTC can continue their own internal trial that has been scheduled for over a year and a half (surely, purely coincidentally scheduled for a month after the deal would contractually fall through). The same FTC that was extensively prepped and assisted in this trial by Sony and Google. The same Sony that has European Playstation headquarters in the UK, where it employs a lot of locals and where it announced a new modern office build shortly before the UK’s CMA announced it would block the Microsoft deal. All of the above whom own plenty of index funds that include copious amounts of Microsoft stock.

Go searching for connections and you’ll find them every which way. I suppose we should declare everything illegitimate and corrupt, go back to atomized subsistence farming.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#326

Post by cman1444 »

user3939382 wrote: post #126

Great let’s add another merger on top of a merger that was already horrible for consumers and creates even less competition.

I don't think this is a very good take. People tend to see one big company buy another and instantly think it's harmful for the consumer. I think that this is beneficial. Activision feels like a stagnant company that just rehashes old titles and squeezes as much cash out of them as they can. Microsoft buying them provides an opportunity for better management and Microsoft can add their IP to gamepass, which I think could end up a very good product that allows consumers to play a wide selection of games without having to purchase each. This business model is needed in the gaming industry.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#327

Post by tremorscript »

doikor wrote: post #319
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)

Sorry

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/29/watchdog-...

The FTC will never ask for a recursal. I know I would not. You cannot blatantly call a judge corrupt especially when you are a participant in that case.

If you are in the judiciary, your standards must be higher.

From the article:- “Nothing antagonizes a judge with whom you might have litigation in the future like calling them recklessly biased,” he said. “What are the odds that Judge Corley would recuse if she was already choosing to brazen her way through this apparent conflict of interest?”

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#328

Post by tremorscript »

elefanten wrote: post #325
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.

There are laws and case law that set standards of varying degrees of precedent that both parties and the judge need to form their arguments around. The losing side can appeal to other courts and, in this case, the FTC can continue their own internal trial that has been scheduled for over a year and a half (surely, purely coincidentally scheduled for a month after the deal would contractually fall through). The same F…

Im sorry. Lets not generalize the problem, lets be specific to this case.

Your son is working for Microsoft, it is a billion dollar case, the question is What would you do? What are your standards?

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#329

Post by stOneskull »

tremorscript wrote: post #328
elefanten wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are laws and case law that set standards of varying degrees of precedent that both parties and the judge need to form their arguments around. The losing side can appeal to other courts and, in this case, the FTC can continue their own internal trial that has been scheduled for over a year and a half (surely, purely coincidentally scheduled for a month after the deal would contractually fall through). The same F…

Im sorry. Lets not generalize the problem, lets be specific to this case. Your son is working for Microsoft, it is a billion dollar case, the question is What would you do? What are your standards?

blood is thicker after all..

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#330

Post by soligern »

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…

That’s a silly analogy. All you need to play soccer is a ball. A game takes years and tens of thousands of man-hours to make. In your analogy the soccer ball manufacturers are the game companies.
Post reply on HN