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

421–430 of 490 posts

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#421

Post by lelanthran »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #405
lelanthran wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not the Boogeyman you think it is. You used to have to buy a game for $60 and if you didn't like it? Well too bad, that's $60 down the drain. Now you can just move on to the next one. I get that for enthusiasts owning a physical game may be more desirable, but for the majority of gamers (casual gamers) a subscription based service is a better option. Moving from an ownership model to a rental model is very ant…

>Moving from an ownership model to a rental model is very anti-consumer. In that case the consumers have worked against their best interests for decades in other mediums. You can even argue as such in the PC market where physical media has also lost. >some people prefer to rent their couch. That's fine. You're effectively arguing that couch ownership should be forbidden. in the same way in that you can still buy a CD…

So rather than han paying 8 times for their games, the players are paying many dozens of times more for the same experience?

I fail to see how this is a good thing.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#422

Post by johnnyanmac »

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.…

>why don't they just stop making Xboxes entirely?

because at this point, even if Xbox's weren't profitable, ending the Xbox brand would harm confidence in Gamepass.

Not that Xbox isn't profitable. But even in the worst case they have negative incentive to pull out.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#423

Post by shmerl »

dave7 wrote: post #387
shmerl wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't MS play along with the industry and support Vulkan on Xbox though? That would make them not look like the worst lock-in examples of the '90s. Feels like these kind of issues are what anti-trust should have handled.

A large chunk of the entire purpose of Xbox is to cement DirectX as the default option to perpetuate that lock-in. It's even in the name: The Direct X-Box!

Yeah, clearly. But that's my point. Competition law should focus on preventing lock-in like this.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#424

Post by Etherlord87 »

LegitShady wrote: post #401
onion2k wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft don't need to make Call of Duty an exclusive. They only need to put new CoD games on Gamepass and Sony are screwed. It'll make Sony's platform look much more expensive.

I hear what you're saying but also understand that putting games on gamepass costs money to microsoft in lost sales. It's like Disney - if all their movies go directly to disney+ they're training customers to not spend $60-80 on buying new games and instead wait for them to come to the cheaper monthly subscription. That isn't free - they still have to develop the game, and the return on the game is lower.

You could argue similarly for dumping, and yet it is regulated. Companies shouldn't be allowed to invest in eliminating competition.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#425

Post by johnnyanmac »

lelanthran wrote: post #421
johnnyanmac wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Moving from an ownership model to a rental model is very anti-consumer. In that case the consumers have worked against their best interests for decades in other mediums. You can even argue as such in the PC market where physical media has also lost. >some people prefer to rent their couch. That's fine. You're effectively arguing that couch ownership should be forbidden. in the same way in that you can still buy a CD…

So rather than han paying 8 times for their games, the players are paying many dozens of times more for the same experience? I fail to see how this is a good thing.

If the players have fun, that's all that really matters. Remember that many of these aren't people who would magically jump in and play Skyrim if the mobile industry suddenly disappeared, even if Skyrim was given to them. It's a completely different audience.

Once again, this is deluxe entertainment, and the overall impact of spending more money on a hobby isn't the end of the world. I'm not going to judge how others use their free time and disposable income.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#426

Post by johnnyanmac »

robertlagrant wrote: post #383
kevingadd wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The following is personal opinion based on publicly available figures, IDK how accurate they are. Skyrim has supposedly sold around 60 million copies over the span of 12 years. Let's be generous and say those sold at an average of $60 each (probably less in practice due to sales, etc.) That's $3.6b USD in raw revenue. Pretty sick! On the other hand, as of 2022 (Skyrim numbers are 2023), Call of Duty as a franchise ha…

Thanks for the reasoning. My disagreement would be that you're comparing an installment with a franchise. The whole of the Elder Scrolls is bigger than Skyrim, although Skyrim was the biggest standalone seller. Elder Scrolls online has I think about 750k MAUs, at $10-$15/mo. And, I suppose more fundamentally, why would MS turn down a good chunk of $3.6b for the dev costs of making a Playstation version of Starfield?

>My disagreement would be that you're comparing an installment with a franchise.

funny thing is that if you compared the last 15 years of COD to Elder scrolls, you're still comparing some dozen COD games to Skyrim and ESO. And I guess that one mobile game? 15 years ago is still a year after Oblivion launched.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#427

Post by johnnyanmac »

shmerl wrote: post #206
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…

Why can't MS play along with the industry and support Vulkan on Xbox though? That would make them not look like the worst lock-in examples of the '90s. Feels like these kind of issues are what anti-trust should have handled.

Playstation and Nintendo's support of Vulkan isn't exactly stellar. They support Vulkan the same way Unity/Unreal Engine support Linux.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#428

Post by johnnyanmac »

tacocataco wrote: post #366
charcircuit wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI you have 2 months to migrate your account before they delete it. You will have to repurchase the game on a new account if you ever want to play it again if you don't migrate it by September 19th.

Thanks for this heads up! Didn't realize I had to stop Microsoft from randomly deciding they can steal the product I already paid for. I own nothing and am so grateful. /$ Is Microsoft going to buy Steam and delete my game library there next?

>Is Microsoft going to buy Steam and delete my game library there next?

Gabe's not gonna live forever. Never know what will happen in some 15-20 years if he retires and/or is simply unable to manage Valve.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#429

Post by johnnyanmac »

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

Nothing is stopping anyone and there are a few. Nothing as big as COD but they exist. But I imagine the result will be similar to how traditional sports work. There will be one big definitive organization for a sport (let's say COD or this example), a few large minor leagues (some knockoff CODs that are fun but nowhere near as popular), and then some small pickup games in a field (the indie games some single dev makes that no one will find).

As a complete tangent, the Touhou series is famously loose in its license and many fans and companies alike have utilized the IP to make games and every other kind of media.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#430

Post by lelanthran »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #425
lelanthran wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So rather than han paying 8 times for their games, the players are paying many dozens of times more for the same experience? I fail to see how this is a good thing.

If the players have fun, that's all that really matters. Remember that many of these aren't people who would magically jump in and play Skyrim if the mobile industry suddenly disappeared, even if Skyrim was given to them. It's a completely different audience. Once again, this is deluxe entertainment, and the overall impact of spending more money on a hobby isn't the end of the world. I'm not going to judge how others…

> If the players have fun, that's all that really matters.

That wasn't your argument. If you wanted to argue that, you should have done so from the beginning.

Your argument was that it is more beneficial for players to pay many times the price of any game they play often.

Post reply on HN