Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#461

Post by skissane » Wed, Jul 12, 2023, 9:55 PM UTC

anthk wrote: post #416

skissane wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Microsoft might be willing to release the Infocom build tools and engines under an MIT license – by now they would be of purely historical interest, similar to open-sourcing MS-DOS 1.0 and 2.0. I'm not sure if they'd be willing to do so for the game assets (the room/item descriptions/etc) – it would remove one of the main legal barriers to a competitor creating their own game set in the Zork universe. The For…

We already have build tools for infocom against the Z-Machine, and interpreters themselves since the 90's. Having a public domain or MIT licensed Dungeon/Zork would allow to fix bugs and not worrying about licenses on any Linux/BSD distro.

> We already have build tools for infocom against the Z-Machine

The TOPS-20 versions of ZILCH (and ZAP) don't seem to be available.

The ITS version of ZILCH from MIT has been recovered, but (from what I understand) it is an earlier version, and the TOPS-20 version which Infocom used later isn't publicly available, and that later version had added features.

In any case, its copyright status is murky, Microsoft could clean up that murkiness.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#462

Post by Arrath » Wed, Jul 12, 2023, 10:28 PM UTC

arcanemachiner wrote: post #367

bbarn wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What exactly are they selling if there's no game inside?

A little bootstrap installer and license key that lets you download the whole-ass game, generally.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#463

Post by bart_spoon » Wed, Jul 12, 2023, 11:29 PM UTC

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?

Microsoft is neither close to eating Steams lunch nor is this acquisition going to change anything about the competitive landscape. Microsoft is currently a distant third place behind Sony and Nintendo, and after this acquisition they are... still a distant third.

If Microsoft is ever in a position where a single merger will materially threaten to catapult them over Sony or Nintendo, then that would be the time to block the deal. In the meantime, I would prefer if the FTC doesn't kill off deals because someday, in the far distant future, the companies involved may be in a more dominant position.

If anything, blocking this deal does nothing but protect Sony's already dominant position from one of their sole competitors making up even a small amount of ground.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#464

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 12, 2023, 11:59 PM UTC

tremorscript wrote: post #327

doikor wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,” h…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#465

Post by Etherlord87 » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 12:04 AM UTC

LegitShady wrote: post #444

Etherlord87 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can't pretend moving to a monthly recurring revenue model thats still profitable is dumping, at least not honestly. My point was that just releasing everything day one on xbox live cannot be a long term sustainable strategy as you're only making $15/month or whatever from that user, but it isn't dumping.

I never said it is dumping, I made an analogy to dumping. Dumping is not a long term sustainable strategy either, and yet governments decided to make it illegal (well some forms of dumping at least).

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#466

Post by dnissley » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 12:15 AM UTC

swift532 wrote: post #459

midoridensha wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If at some point consumers have to pay more than they would in a more competitive market, how is that not harm? No one HAS to pay for entertainment. It's a pure luxury. There's tons of things you can do with your free time besides playing video games (let alone brand-new AAA console titles): go outside, take a hike, play an instrument, take up a hobby, socialize, learn to cook, write your own software, I could go on…

Well if you take it to the point of absurdity, then we only have to maintain a competitive market for grain and water.

I'm not sure this is absurdity. The point is that no company could possibly have an abusable monopoly on entertainment because A) the sheer variety of things there are to do for entertainment, B) the incredibly low barriers to entry in entertainment, and C) that even if there were some entity that gained control over some significant portion of it, that vast majority of people would just do something, anything else rather than submit to such a monopolist's demands. They might be grumpy about it on some level, but that's hardly rising to the level of consumer harm. You might say there is still the case of some tiny number of incredibly dependent people who would continue playing and paying for certain titles no matter the cost, but that is their decision -- they are not without agency to simply say no, and so even that doesn't rise to the level of consumer harm.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#467

Post by midoridensha » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 1:35 AM UTC

dnissley wrote: post #466

swift532 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you take it to the point of absurdity, then we only have to maintain a competitive market for grain and water.

I'm not sure this is absurdity. The point is that no company could possibly have an abusable monopoly on entertainment because A) the sheer variety of things there are to do for entertainment, B) the incredibly low barriers to entry in entertainment, and C) that even if there were some entity that gained control over some significant portion of it, that vast majority of people would just do something, anything else r…

As I mentioned in another comment, what if, after completing this acquisition, MS decided to raise the price of CoD to $100,000 per player per year? Would this really harm consumers? Would people really be forced to sell their homes and kidneys?

Of course not. They'd just play another game, or watch a movie or something.

If someone wants to play video games, they can do it for free on archive.org, and all they need is a web browser.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#468

Post by wredue » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 1:45 AM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #338

wredue wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you be a huge fan of the man who’s single handedly responsible for sinking the Xbox IP ship to the point of having to monopolize the industry to right the ship? I’m surprised people didn’t wake up with the One era lies he kept pushing, and given HNs general distaste for “marketer talk”, how can one be a fan of a dude that every time he opens his mouth, it’s marketing talk (when it’s not a lie). This dude wo…

You're thinking of Don Mattrick.

I am most definitely not, Mattick was Mr “we have a console for that, the Xbox 360” ultimately leading to Spencer taking his role over. Spencer was 100% the dude saying “we’re not letting Sony have a hardware advantage” although I may have mixed up which obviously bullshit Xbox fanboy excuse it was about.

None of it really matter though, because even forgetting Phil obviously constantly fanning the console wars, he’s presided over Xbox for what like 10 years? In that time, what he’s managed to do is be a baby, and complain that his ineffective management is leading to their console having no games.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#469

Post by georgeplusplus » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 2:06 AM UTC

worrycue wrote: post #223

georgeplusplus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehh I think this allows microsoft to catch up. I think they were the laggards in the console war.

If Microsoft caught up by building up 1st party studios nigh from scratch - which is what Sony did - I would have no complaints because anyone could do that. May the best company win. Buying up one of the biggest publishers though. What’s Sony and Nintendo, whose combined market cap is less than 7% of MS’s, suppose to do? I don’t see how allowing “big money Pay 2 Win without a fight” in anyway benefits the consumer.

I don't think Market Cap is an honest metric to use here. Microsoft's Market Cap is that high comparatively because theyre diverse products in computer, cloud, and tech.

How much of that MC is solely X-box and how much do MS , Sony, and Nintendo own of that respectively? MS studios has been struggling. Activision also has been struggling to land some hits and only recently with Diablo 4 they have got some relief. So buying Activision is not a golden ticket.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#470

Post by throwawaymobule » Thu, Jul 13, 2023, 3:15 AM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #447

johnnyanmac wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Playstation - yeah (Sony doesn't care at all so far). Nintendo on the other hand is surprisingly positive about it: https://www.khronos.org/blog/you-can-use-vulkan-without-pipe... Which is refreshing.

It's a damn shame too, since they could really take advantage of things like dxvk (zlib licenced) to make porting existing games easier. Surprised no 'middleware' company has tried this either.