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

41–50 of 590 posts

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

#41

Post by hx8 »

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.

As a gamer, I'm most interested in the artistic perspective.

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

#42

Post by hx8 »

ejlxsh wrote: post #26
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.

Chances are games will be added to the gamepass, meaning we get these for essentially free.

I'm more concerned that I won't have access to the games because I don't play on Xbox or Windows.

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

#43

Post by pjmlp »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #38
pjmlp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree, in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials.

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

#44

Post by Sakos »

sofixa wrote: post #10
PretzelPirate wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Approval isn't based on whether or not they can afford to compete without the acquisition, it's based on whether or not the acquisition will meaningfully reduce competition.

Each competition authority has their own criteria. But in this case, it will meaningfully reduce competition. For some reason UK's CMA only considered cloud gaming, which is a weird fixation. Maybe because it's an emerging market? If all Activison Blizzard games become Xbox exclusive will reduce competition and screw consumers, yet that was dropped as a concern for who knows what reason.

I just don't see how it meaningfully reduces competition. This barely moves the needle. If I look at the top sellers on Steam, the vast majority are not Activision Blizzard.

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

#45

Post by manuelabeledo »

nerdjon wrote: post #39
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…

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…

Most of these grievances are more about changes in the architectural direction than anything else.

I don't see how using the Cell processor could be considered "anti-consumer". After all, we are talking about a time when consoles didn't generally use "off the self" processors - Nintendo had a customized PowerPC, too. Using more generic architectures is a quite recent development.

> Paying developers either for exclusive content or for exclusive third party games.

Both Microsoft and Nintendo do this, in different ways. Let's not forget that some of Microsoft exclusives came from Rare and Bungie, studios with a relatively long independent history.

> 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.

Spencer was the GM all the way back to 2014, so I don't think that's true.

On the other hand, I honestly cannot believe that we are discussing if Microsoft is more anti-consumer, or more monopolistic, than Sony.

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

#46

Post by manuelabeledo »

pjmlp wrote: post #43
manuelabeledo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I disagree, in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials.

> I disagree

Have you played many games on PSLinux?

> in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials.

If you suggest that buying exclusives is a bad thing, then you should agree that buying large independent studios is, too.

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

#47

Post by c0pium »

hx8 wrote: post #42
ejlxsh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chances are games will be added to the gamepass, meaning we get these for essentially free.

I'm more concerned that I won't have access to the games because I don't play on Xbox or Windows.

So you campaigned against Sony buying Bungie too, right?

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

#48

Post by pjmlp »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #46
pjmlp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials.

> I disagree Have you played many games on PSLinux? > in any case, publishing deals offering money to studios for them not to publish on XBox like came up on the trials. If you suggest that buying exclusives is a bad thing , then you should agree that buying large independent studios is, too.

As owner of a PS2 Linux, I have, from those indie folks you might have heard of, shared via the PS2Linux SCEE forums.

PS2Linux was the successor of Yaroze.

Exclusives are great for studios.

The bad practice is placing bad behaviours on the contract fine print like not allowing for feature parity after the exclusivity deal runs out, or suffering the risk of a lawsuit.

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

#49

Post by dnissley »

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.

I've only ever seen gamers grouse about this acquisition fwiw
Post reply on HN