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

341–350 of 490 posts

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#341

Post by jonhohle »

topkai22 wrote: post #324
NovaDudely wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The issue isn’t about trying out games, it’s about having access to those games in 5, 10, 20 years or later. There is a growing list of digital only titles that are no longer available to new players and may be unavailable to people who “bought” them. I have a bricked Wii with digital games that are tied to the physical console, not any account. There is no way to recover them.

Steam has done a remarkable job staying open for 20 years (My copy of Half Life 2 is right where I left it). Sony has done a reasonable job. I don’t know about Microsoft. Nintendo has failed several times, but may have finally figured it out with the Switch.

I know I can buy discs and cartridges from any previous era and as long as I have a system (or emulator), I can play them, lend them, or sell them. Digital versions allow me to play, but for how long. I can’t lend or sell them. If I get the urge to play Resogun in 2033 and don’t have it downloaded, am I going to be able to?

I do think there may be a generational component to it as well. I’ve always thought Gen X is more tied to the idea of “owning” a copy (music, movies, games), while younger generations are more comfortable with digital only releases, or even subscription catalogues that change over time as the primary means of entertainment.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#342

Post by stOneskull »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #288
lesuorac wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What about this: allow the merger, and if the harm is done, the company must pay, but if the harm is not done, the state must pay? The FTC identified not having CoD on multiple platforms as a large issue. What payment is justified if Microsoft doesn't allow CoD on multiple platforms? It's easy to say "if harm is done, the company must pay" but look how long we've know leaded gasoline was harmful, look how long we'v…

>The FTC identified not having CoD on multiple platforms as a large issue. What perspective has been applied to this?

toy soldiers gotta be trained

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#343

Post by Jare »

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?

If their son works for Microsoft in a position unrelated to this deal, there's absolutely no conflict of interest unless you actually prove real attempts to influence the resolution.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#344

Post by deutschepost »

QuesnayJr wrote: post #305
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…

A judge ended the rule that studios couldn't own theaters in 2020: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomnunan/2020/08/07/judge-decre...

It is a very weird coincidence that every major film studio started streaming services after that law ended. I thought it was more general like a cut between production and distribution not production and theatres.

Now we are in the same position as a hundred years ago. At that time you would have to go into a theatre by the production company and now you have to go to the streaming service of the production company.

That split between production and distribution has to come back.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#345

Post by Jochim »

topkai22 wrote: post #324
NovaDudely wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Game streaming is a great option to have but it incentivises the same behaviour we've seen from companies that move to a SAAS model: Charge a monthly fee and remove the option to own the product.

Not actually owning the games is a problem. Nvidia's service, GeForce Now, originally allowed you to play any game you had purchased on Steam, under the theory that you were using your license to play it. Their library was decimated when that was challenged legally.

Most of the services don't offer the same modding options as you would have on PC either.

If I were to pick between the two, I'd rather we move towards having more control over the things we purchase than less.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#346

Post by bbarn »

jonhohle wrote: post #341
topkai22 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The issue isn’t about trying out games, it’s about having access to those games in 5, 10, 20 years or later. There is a growing list of digital only titles that are no longer available to new players and may be unavailable to people who “bought” them. I have a bricked Wii with digital games that are tied to the physical console, not any account. There is no way to recover them. Steam has done a remarkable job staying…

The majority of new games can't work offline, and having a physical disc is now so rare that companies are selling game boxes and deluxe editions that contain no software at all - not even a download code, since you need to buy it with an account anyway.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#347

Post by NovaDudely »

justinclift wrote: post #182
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…

Yeah. Looking at past form, after the MS anti-trust agreement in the EU expired (the browser choice one), MS have now gone all-in to force Edge down everyone's throat. They're clearly "Ok, we have more room to legally get away with XYZ now so LETS GO FOR IT!!!!".

MS is the definition of a Slippery Slope in action.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#348

Post by Jochim »

mighmi wrote: post #331
manuelabeledo wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more accurate comparison would be to force Sony to release their exclusive titles on Xbox. Sony does not own Square-Enix.

> force Sony to release their exclusive titles on Xbox. How much do ports normally cost? How many units would they need to move to hit even?

It depends on the engine but indy studios are frequently able to port to all of the major platforms: PC, Xbox, PlayStation, and Switch.

The exclusive addressable market for each is definitely big enough to outweigh porting costs.

A good first step would be to ban exclusivity agreements, rather than mandate cross platform availability and to fine both parties heavily for suspected foul play.

Exclusivity agreements are a great example of something that is directly harmful to consumers. It removes choice, increases cost, encourages electronic waste, and leads to an inferior experience.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#349

Post by Jochim »

Dalewyn wrote: post #180
ScoobleDoodle wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Activision / Blizzard / King includes: Candy Crush, World of Warcraft, and Diablo which are all heavy hitters.

Just going to point out Candy Crush is the inferior Solitaire and Minesweeper equivalent of the current generation.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone under the age of 40 play Candy Crush.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#350

Post by Jochim »

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?

The phone contacts and social graph of everyone using WhatsApp.
Post reply on HN