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

161–170 of 590 posts

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

#161

Post by braymundo »

ascagnel_ wrote: post #133
mrweasel wrote: post #70

And what is Microsoft going to do with this purchase? Seriously, Microsoft is buy all these game studios and fail to utilize them probably. They own all the IP required to do a followup to Fallout New Vegas and NOTHING.

Just because they own all the pieces (the Fallout franchise, the engine Bethesda created for F:NV, Obsidian Entertainment) doesn't mean there's a workable concept for the game. Obsidian put out two games in the past two-ish years: Grounded (a co-op survival shooter) and Pentiment (a point-and-click murder mystery set in the middle ages). Both were well-received. In addition, Obsidian has also announced The Outer Worl…

Pentiment is a masterpiece.

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

#163

Post by kcb »

xinayder wrote: post #71

Bobby Kotick will remain as CEO until the end of 2023 and get a huge check for this purchase. He's getting rewarded for building a toxic, fratboy workspace, sexually and psycologically harassing women. I wonder if Microsoft can be held accountable for allowing a sex predator like him to continue working.

Bobby Kotick spent 30 years building Activision from nothing to a company worth $70 billion. If he doesn't deserve some of that $70 billion then who does?

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

#164

Post by lotsofpulp »

esotericimpl wrote: post #111
xinayder wrote: post #71

Bobby Kotick will remain as CEO until the end of 2023 and get a huge check for this purchase. He's getting rewarded for building a toxic, fratboy workspace, sexually and psycologically harassing women. I wonder if Microsoft can be held accountable for allowing a sex predator like him to continue working.

I think hes getting rewarded for growing the company by 95x over the past 20 years. As a shareholder since 1999 my cost basis for my shares in ATVI is about $1.11 - Exiting at 95.00. Pretty good return TBH.

I was curious so I looked up the returns on dqdyj, and Aug 1999 to Aug 2023, ATVI’s return was 20.5% per year compared to 7.1% per year for SP500.

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

#165

Post by babypuncher »

opportune wrote: post #135
mrweasel wrote: post #70

And what is Microsoft going to do with this purchase? Seriously, Microsoft is buy all these game studios and fail to utilize them probably. They own all the IP required to do a followup to Fallout New Vegas and NOTHING.

They haven’t owned Bethesda for very long so I think it’s fair that they haven’t released a F:NV successor yet. I do suspect that Microsoft may have been behind Starfield releasing in its half-baked, dumbed down state though a la “We need it on game pass by X, make it happen!” Regarding at least the Blizzard side of the acquisition, I feel like Microsoft ownership may end up being a good thing for their underused IP.…

> I do suspect that Microsoft may have been behind Starfield releasing in its half-baked, dumbed down state though a la “We need it on game pass by X, make it happen!”

The rumor mill suggests the opposite is true. Bethesda intended to ship the game over a year ago and Microsoft delayed it to make sure it wasn't the next No Man's Sky or Cyberpunk.

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

#166

Post by manuelabeledo »

nerdjon wrote: post #53
manuelabeledo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exclus…

Maybe the cell processor was not anti-consumer but I also mentioned Sony being cocky which it very much was. As far as Bungie, they were bought by Microsoft by the time Halo was made exclusive. I am not remembering any exclusive games from Rare before being bought by Microsoft? You are right that Phil Spensor was the GM in 2014. That is a year after the Xbox One release ate, after many of the past mistakes were made.…

> Maybe the cell processor was not anti-consumer but I also mentioned Sony being cocky which it very much was.

What does cocky even mean? These are corporations!

> I am not remembering any exclusive games from Rare before being bought by Microsoft?

You need to go back to the Super Nintendo and Nintendo 64 era, then.

Golden Eye, Donkey Kong Country, Killer Instinct, Banjo-Kazooie, among others.

> I am not necessarily saying that Microsoft is more or less anti consumer as a whole. But their gaming devision has done things (often in direct counter to what Sony is doing) that are more consumer friendly behaviors.

Right, but where are those examples?

I'm of the opinion that Sony Entertainment paying for exclusivity deals with Square-Enix, is not remotely comparable to Microsoft buying a massive studio (Bethesda Softworks), with incredibly popular franchises (Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom), and locking them to their platforms barely three years after.

I'm also old enough to remember how Microsoft essentially killed any chances of open standards in videogames with their DirectX API, a move with massive consequences to other platforms, so much so that even nowadays, your best chance to run games on Linux is to use a DirectX translator.

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

#168

Post by delecti »

hipadev23 wrote: post #138
delecti wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The merger of two large entities in the same market is a pretty clear example of something that should raise antitrust concerns.

I disagree because Microsoft doesn't hold some unique barrier to entry into video game production the way they do an operating system.

You can argue that this specific case doesn't rise to the level that would actually result in anti-competitive results. My point was just that the merger of two large companies is the kind of thing that deserves scrutiny, because your comment implied that it couldn't even in theory have antitrust concerns.

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

#169

Post by koshergweilo »

opportune wrote: post #135
mrweasel wrote: post #70

And what is Microsoft going to do with this purchase? Seriously, Microsoft is buy all these game studios and fail to utilize them probably. They own all the IP required to do a followup to Fallout New Vegas and NOTHING.

They haven’t owned Bethesda for very long so I think it’s fair that they haven’t released a F:NV successor yet. I do suspect that Microsoft may have been behind Starfield releasing in its half-baked, dumbed down state though a la “We need it on game pass by X, make it happen!” Regarding at least the Blizzard side of the acquisition, I feel like Microsoft ownership may end up being a good thing for their underused IP.…

> I do suspect that Microsoft may have been behind Starfield releasing in its half-baked, dumbed down state

Bethesda has been consistently simplifying their games since Morrowind and I don't think they've ever had smooth launch.

While it's true Microsoft rushes many releases, I don't think they're entirely to blame in this case

Post reply on HN