Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 590 posts

Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard

#31

Post by manuelabeledo »

nerdjon wrote: post #28

We likely won't see any real effects of this until the next generation of consoles, but I think in 3-4 years it is going to be very interesting to see what happens with gaming. Putting Nintendo aside since they really don't compete, they are kinda just in their own "Nintendo" space and that isn't a bad thing. But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in…

> But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and they get cocky. They did it with the PS3 and they are repeating some of that with the PS5 generation.

I'm curious about which "anti-consumer practices" Sony is responsible for, that Microsoft isn't.

So far it seems to me that Sony did acquire some gaming studios, but mostly smaller ones. Microsoft has recently bought two big studios with massive franchises, of which some are already not available for Sony platforms.

Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard

#32

Post by nine_k »

thfuran wrote: post #17
nine_k wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are 100 roughly comparable companies, a merger happens, and 99 remain, the competition decreased, but the landscape is still competitive. If there are 3 roughly comparable companies that control 90% of the market, the competition is already low; if two of them merged, very little competition would remain. A duopoly is not as bad as a monopoly, but is still pretty far from an "efficient market".

>If there are 100 roughly comparable companies, a merger happens, and 99 remain, the competition decreased, but the landscape is still competitive. But still less competitive than it was. So why allow a company like Microsoft to make the field less competitive when it could afford to compete instead of buying its competitors? I think a company even half as large or profitable as Microsoft should have to present a pre…

What if a company goes out of business, and fewer remain? Should it be even allowed to close? :)

Mergers are different because they create fewer giants in the place where more smaller companies used to be. In extreme cases, it may have seriously bad consequences for broader public, and this is a reason to prevent a merger, or even split a monopoly. But this should be a rather extraordinary event.

Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard

#33

Post by pjmlp »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #31
nerdjon wrote: post #28

We likely won't see any real effects of this until the next generation of consoles, but I think in 3-4 years it is going to be very interesting to see what happens with gaming. Putting Nintendo aside since they really don't compete, they are kinda just in their own "Nintendo" space and that isn't a bad thing. But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in…

> But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and they get cocky. They did it with the PS3 and they are repeating some of that with the PS5 generation. I'm curious about which "anti-consumer practices" Sony is responsible for, that Microsoft isn't. So far it seems to me that Sony did acquire some gaming studi…

PS2Linux, the way PS3 Linux was a downgrade to PS2Linux, and later removed via firmware update, for example.

Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard

#34

Post by jnovek »

eigenket wrote: post #29
izzydata wrote: post #20

It's strange to see some gamers praise this acquisition as if it will have any positive effect on some of the games they enjoy. In no world will Microsoft decreasing the competition going to be a good thing for consumers.

Mostly its because Activision/Blizzard is such an obviously shitty terrible company that any deal that sees cool IPs taken out of their hands is seen as a positive thing.

Came here to say this. Activision has been such a poor steward of Blizzard's properties that I find them largely unplayable. It may be unlikely that Microsoft will course correct away from data-drive, engagement-focus mtx games, but I know Activision never will.

Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard

#35

Post by izzydata »

eigenket wrote: post #29
izzydata wrote: post #20

It's strange to see some gamers praise this acquisition as if it will have any positive effect on some of the games they enjoy. In no world will Microsoft decreasing the competition going to be a good thing for consumers.

Mostly its because Activision/Blizzard is such an obviously shitty terrible company that any deal that sees cool IPs taken out of their hands is seen as a positive thing.

Maybe from an artistic perspective, but not from a financial one. It will inevitably mean gamers will spend more money for less game. They might hide it will with their game renting service and microtransactions, but if this was not the case there would be no reason for them to acquire Activision Blizzard in the first place. They see some way to profit by reducing competition.

Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard

#36

Post by jacobr1 »

izzydata wrote: post #35
eigenket wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly its because Activision/Blizzard is such an obviously shitty terrible company that any deal that sees cool IPs taken out of their hands is seen as a positive thing.

Maybe from an artistic perspective, but not from a financial one. It will inevitably mean gamers will spend more money for less game. They might hide it will with their game renting service and microtransactions, but if this was not the case there would be no reason for them to acquire Activision Blizzard in the first place. They see some way to profit by reducing competition.

It is _possible_ that their rental bundle results in a better deal for a reasonable segment of the market than the aggregate of one-off title purchases would be. Though the lock-in means if they jack up the price it might become a poor deal after the fact. Or if you are the kind of person that would purchase fewer games than the total subscription fees would cost, it also wouldn't be better. But sometimes bundling is indeed a better deal for consumers.

Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard

#37

Post by mistrial9 »

foobar_______ wrote: post #18

Microsoft under Satya has really stepped up. Gaming is now larger than TV and Movies in terms of revenue. I know their cloud rollout didn't work as anticipated, but if they get this acquisition right they will have a money printer for the next decade.

brilliant leadership? considering that overall Games out-grossed Movies about 15 years ago.. that trend only continued when the largest Game rollout of all time beat the largest Movie rollout of all time.. that has happened multiple times in 10 years.

Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard

#38

Post by manuelabeledo »

pjmlp wrote: post #33
manuelabeledo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and they get cocky. They did it with the PS3 and they are repeating some of that with the PS5 generation. I'm curious about which "anti-consumer practices" Sony is responsible for, that Microsoft isn't. So far it seems to me that Sony did acquire some gaming studi…

PS2Linux, the way PS3 Linux was a downgrade to PS2Linux, and later removed via firmware update, for example.

That's hardly on their "gaming space", like OP said.

Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard

#39

Post by nerdjon »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #31
nerdjon wrote: post #28

We likely won't see any real effects of this until the next generation of consoles, but I think in 3-4 years it is going to be very interesting to see what happens with gaming. Putting Nintendo aside since they really don't compete, they are kinda just in their own "Nintendo" space and that isn't a bad thing. But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in…

> But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and they get cocky. They did it with the PS3 and they are repeating some of that with the PS5 generation. I'm curious about which "anti-consumer practices" Sony is responsible for, that Microsoft isn't. So far it seems to me that Sony did acquire some gaming studi…

A few things, and I am likely forgetting others:

Backwards compatibility: It was a mess on the PS3 with different launch models having different levels of compatibility. They later removed this functionality completely on the PS3. The PS4 had no backwards compatibility for PS3 instead you had to purchase (or subscribe) to play games in the cloud, games you may already own.

Compared to Xbox which the Xbox One did not launch with backwards compatibility once the leadership was changed they started a project to bring backwards compatibility to Xbox 360 and OG Xbox games (admittedly on a limited basis but you could stick in your original disks and it worked, no extra charge). This carried over to the Series consoles.

Related to this Sony has re-released their games many times and been able to thanks to the lack of proper backwards compatibility.

The price of the PS3.

The cell processor of the PS3, Sony thinking that devs would bend over backwards to support their architecture.

Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games. The content is the one that really drives me insane because if you buy a game on another platform you are getting less content for the same money.

Blocking cross play with other consoles for a long time and then only allowing it in certain situations (I don't actually know if this has improved yet or not).

There are likely a few others that I can't remember right now but I am about to hop into a meeting. But has Microsoft done some of these things? yes, but before Phil Spensor came in and changed Xbox.

Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard

#40

Post by MikusR »

izzydata wrote: post #20

It's strange to see some gamers praise this acquisition as if it will have any positive effect on some of the games they enjoy. In no world will Microsoft decreasing the competition going to be a good thing for consumers.

Because it means more games for GamePass and Geforce NOW.
Post reply on HN