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

481–490 of 490 posts

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#481

Post by extasia »

coremoff wrote: post #479
tapoxi wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't. Computer games take a huge amount of intellectual effort to make, does printer ink? (maybe at some point yes, but certainly not now!)

Edit: Though maybe you're talking flappy bird and I'm talking triple-A, actually impressive boundary pushing game. We may just be talking past one another

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#482

Post by juicy1nonly »

coremoff wrote: post #479
tapoxi wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am not playing 3D games developed by team by hundred of people on the color of my printer paper. Thats why.

And if you complain buy a laser printer and never complain again.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#483

Post by jakkos »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #435
madeofpalk wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we can put aside the superficial sports-team rivalries for a moment. Maybe both Microsoft and Sony could develop good products that consumers and publishers want to pay money for, rather than make unrelated, restrictive business deals!

>rather than make unrelated, restrictive business deals! I thought you wanted to put aside the superficial sports-team rivalries? No casual consumer cares about the deals, they care about the games. If this makes better games, cool. If not, not cool. We'll see how history goes this time around.

I don't play one my of favourite games of all time, Bloodborne, because it's forever stuck at 1080p 30fps with terrible loading times on a PS4 solely due to these stupid exclusivity deals.

All the other games built in the same engine by the same studio are released on Xbox and PC.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#485

Post by worrycue »

georgeplusplus wrote: post #469
worrycue wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you think Sony or Nintendo can spit out 70 billion to buy a publisher without breaking a sweat like Microsoft?

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#486

Post by IIsi50MHz »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #406
fxtentacle wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You'll own nothing and be happy" It described life in an unnamed city in which the narrator does not own a car, a house, any appliances, or any clothes, and instead relies on shared services for all of his daily needs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_ha...

seems a bit hyperbolic to compare not owning the software on a disc to not owning clothes. Fact is that deluxe entertainment isn't some crucial necessity for most people. So of course they don't mind the lack of ownership.

> seems a bit hyperbolic to compare not owning the software on a disc to not owning clothes.

True. Although, satire does tend to exaggerate to make its point. (I'm assuming the indicated source is at least in part satire, not having yet read it.)

Related to rent vs own: public libraries are (in a sense) renting, just paid for either indirectly or by other people.

> Fact is that deluxe entertainment isn't some crucial necessity for most people. So of course they don't mind the lack of ownership.

Until they try to play something from the past, and can't, because it relied on a game server, streaming server, or some other kind of remote asset that was not preserved. This portends a greater loss of shared culture compared to that which can be backed up or archived. Some people might be working on that, but I expect most will be made preservable only by rare rights-holders or illicit propagation.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#487

Post by Projectiboga »

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…

Uh that rule was based on a 75 year long 'temporary' agreement that has expired. That is another part of this whole Writers and Actors striking that the media isn't talking about. I think the agreement was to settle a case before the Supreme Court in 1948, it just ended and it is now Game On for the studios to take over the theaters again.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#488

Post by nathants »

juicy1nonly wrote: post #482
coremoff wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I am not playing 3D games developed by team by hundred of people on the color of my printer paper. Thats why. And if you complain buy a laser printer and never complain again.

true. black and white laser printer is the only way to print.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#489

Post by johnnyanmac »

jakkos wrote: post #483
johnnyanmac wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>rather than make unrelated, restrictive business deals! I thought you wanted to put aside the superficial sports-team rivalries? No casual consumer cares about the deals, they care about the games. If this makes better games, cool. If not, not cool. We'll see how history goes this time around.

I don't play one my of favourite games of all time, Bloodborne, because it's forever stuck at 1080p 30fps with terrible loading times on a PS4 solely due to these stupid exclusivity deals. All the other games built in the same engine by the same studio are released on Xbox and PC.

I see what you mean, but that wasn't the best example. Bloodborne wasn't a mere exclusivity deal. Sony published the game, owns the IP, and co-developed the game with the now dead Japan Studio. They own Bloodborne the same way they own Ratchet and Clank (20 years before they aquired the primary developers of that IP). FromSoft has no more control over Bloodborne than Monolith has over Xenogears/Xenosaga.

The producer of Bloodborne doesn't even work at Sony anymore. There's a multitude of reasons Sony is dragging their feet there, unrelated to aquisitions.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#490

Post by ScoobleDoodle »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #283
ScoobleDoodle wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft’s acquisition of Bethesda lead directly to Starfield not being released on the Sony PlayStation at all. I read the game’s developers were not happy with that. https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/23/23771828/microsoft-bethed...

They're gonna be even more upset when they realize that about 50% of the people who end up playing the game do so through Gamepass.

I think Microsoft might be treating it as kind of a loss leader. But from an article I read the employees and executives whose bonuses are based on sales are mad about PS5 being cut out of the equation. And I can see what you site about Game Pass playing into that as well.
Post reply on HN