Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

theverge.com

471–480 of 490 posts

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#471

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.

Is it this article? https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/06/22/blocking-the-mi...

Honestly... IMO that analysis is completely misguided and nearly contradictory.

Even if I accept the premise that the merger will (1) increase cloud and game streaming and (2) cloud/streaming games is good for consumers, I would argue it "harms consumers" under the legal anti-competitive and anti-trust arguments.

My argument is that achieving premise (1) via a merger is by-definition anti-consumer because it would strengthen cloud/game streaming outside of actual consumer demand. It's not possible or the place for the courts to decide what consumers "want" beyond high level details like cost, and availability, etc.

There's no rule preventing Activison from licensing it's games to Microsoft's, Sony's, etc. cloud gaming services. If there was genuine consumer demand for cloud gaming, then Activison is in the perfect position to get the best deal from all/any of the existing cloud gaming providers.

> (Article) Subscriptions and streaming have turned the music and television industries upside down in the past couple of decades.

Music, TV, and Film streaming all grew out of independent providers. Really it started with rentals which used the "first-sale" doctrine to even exist - it doesn't get much more independent than buying the standalone product and renting it. The fact that TV/Movie streaming is now fragmenting is causing large amounts of pain and cost for consumers not less. Over the past decade only Music streaming has remained simple and cheap - and all of the major providers here are independent of the record companies.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#472

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!

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.

It’s like the twilight zone in this thread. You argued that buying physical games is throwing away money. Then proceeded to say subscription services are actually better. Kinda absurd, if I don’t like any games on game pass then that’s money down the drain. No refund. If I buy physical games, I can & do sell them for half or even double what I bought it for. Games are an asset. Humanity is doomed if people really down want feeding trough entertainment, not caring what they play/watch and paying monthly for the experience

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#473
post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Intel is using dxvk.

Most games rely on engines that support Vulkan better now (like UE5), so there is not much of an interest I guess.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#474
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…

in 10 years I fully expect Sony to have a competitive first party title exclusive to playstation, now that they actually have to give a damn. I love the killzone series but Guerilla seems to be doing fine with Horizon, hopefully a new IP

In 10 years Sony… I don’t think Sony is intending to go all out on gaming going forward. They’ve been figuring out how to cross pollinate their IPs into media productions. It certainly will make them more money in the long term but some people might be turned off with how much they milk each franchise before moving onto a new IP. Naughty dog is working on LoU3 and Guerilla is working on Horizon Remaster, Horizon Multiplayer and supposedly a non horizon game..

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#475

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.

> 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…

[dead]

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Oh, I shared plenty specific to the case that you've glossed right over. Why does your observation matter more than any of mine? Do you have a theory of how the tenuous connection you state might induce a district court judge to risk harming her career by making a flimsy decision that can be overturned or, worse, risk criminal prosecution if she was found to be conspiring in illegal dereliction of her duty? What's th…

The mere appearance of bias is a consideration.

Generally, it's up to the judge to decide whether they should recuse themselves from the case. But I think it's fair game to raise such a concern.

Making up theories of how the judge could actually be conspiring to favor one party over the other is really unnecessary.

You know that the law isn't as concrete as you implied, right? It's not merely a mechanical application of rules. There's a lot of room for interpretation, and the interpretation of the rules and how they apply to the factual context has a huge influence to the outcome of the case. Skilled judges are able to write up reasons for awarding the case to either party. When two parties decide to go to court instead of settling, generally their lawyers do believe they have a reasonable chance of winning in court. So it's often not even hard for a judge to justify their decision. Having a judge who is ever so slightly biased towards one party would make it really difficult for the other party to play on a level ground.

There are usually no explicit incentives required for a judge to be biased. Just a general impression of "oh, these Microsoft people are quite nice, my son often tells me about the perks he enjoys at work" _could_ be sufficient to give Microsoft a slight but significant advantage in the case.

In general, I don't think you have any idea how the justice system works, and how delicate it can be. I don't know where you got your dismissive tone from. It's quite obvious you don't know sh!t.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#477
post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have a reference (case law, practice directions, code of conduct, legislation, etc.) for your assertion, or are you just pulling that from your ___ ?

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#478

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…

> At the end of the day this only strengthens the trend to PC gaming which only benefits Microsoft and can only hurt Sony. Microsoft and Sony aren't the only companies making video games. Windows isn't the only PC operating system. In large part thanks to Steam, a lot of video games work on Linux nowadays. Sony is free to implement their OS in such a way that you can play PC games on Playstation. Of course Sony doesn…

Sony sells their hardware at a loss or break even, why would they then let you use a PlayStation in "PC" mode so Valve or Microsoft get royalties instead?

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#479
post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the end of the day this only strengthens the trend to PC gaming which only benefits Microsoft and can only hurt Sony. Microsoft and Sony aren't the only companies making video games. Windows isn't the only PC operating system. In large part thanks to Steam, a lot of video games work on Linux nowadays. Sony is free to implement their OS in such a way that you can play PC games on Playstation. Of course Sony doesn…

Sony sells their hardware at a loss or break even, why would they then let you use a PlayStation in "PC" mode so Valve or Microsoft get royalties instead?

I find it strange that people complain about the cost of printer ink but not computer games

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#480
post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the end of the day this only strengthens the trend to PC gaming which only benefits Microsoft and can only hurt Sony. Microsoft and Sony aren't the only companies making video games. Windows isn't the only PC operating system. In large part thanks to Steam, a lot of video games work on Linux nowadays. Sony is free to implement their OS in such a way that you can play PC games on Playstation. Of course Sony doesn…

Sony sells their hardware at a loss or break even, why would they then let you use a PlayStation in "PC" mode so Valve or Microsoft get royalties instead?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN