anyone can point me to a decent list of what exactly these objections were?
Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
171–180 of 590 posts
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It also never would have been released without gamepass, so we have some evidence that Microsoft acquisitions don't all end terribly
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#173Normally I'm against such huge mergers - but Activision Blizzard is one of the most hostile companies against their users and employees I have ever seen. I can't imagine this being a bad thing for game fans.
I wonder if a lot of the hostility was the result of cost cutting to prepare the company for sale?
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#174MS has been making some really mediocre games in the past 5 years. What have they made that was good or won awards/Acclaim? I think they buy studios and the execs then put their finger prints all over it and f up the games. Just look at Starfield, hyped af but mid af
true, I wonder what will happen co COD
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Focusing on one asshole getting undeserved rewards is one thing, but it distracts from the real story. What hurts way more at scale is the increasing monopolistic power of Microsoft Games. That should be the primary focus of everyone's attention. This weakens Sony, Nintendo, Steam, Epic. The consumer. Everyone but Microsoft. Microsoft can give away "experiences" under-cost and sink a lot of human attention into it. T…
I don't know how the authorities were convinced that they won't make ActiBlizz games exclusive. When they acquired Bethesda, a similar concern was brought up. Fast-forward to today, new Bethesda games aren't releasing on Sony consoles. It started with Starfield. TES6 won't release on PS either.
Well seeing as Microsoft has signed and has offered to sign 10 year deals on not making certain games exclusive, then nobody has to "trust" Microsoft to do anything.
Also, you can just look at all the non exclusive games Microsoft has.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
> increasing monopolistic power of Microsoft Games Microsoft has never been #1 in gaming. It's always been playing catch-up. There's nothing even remotely close to "monopolistic". That doesn't make any sense at all. You literally can't be a monopoly if you're not #1. This is Microsoft simply trying to complete better against Sony. Which is a good thing. It benefits the consumer as stronger, more equal competition lea…
Uh no. Buying out previously cross platform studios and then converting their titles to Microsoft only is absolutely not “strengthening competition”. If Microsoft want to strengthen competition, they would stop burning their first party studios to the ground.
What does competition mean, if not differences in software? The console hardware between Sony and Microsoft isn't meaningfully differentiated. If the consoles had identical catalogs what would be left to differentiate them other than friends list lock-in? A few FPS or a home screen you happen to prefer aren't important things.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#177Bobby 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?
his victims
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#178God damn man. How is this not an antitrust violation? The only answer is that we live in truly corrupt times. What is our answer to this?
What is the antitrust behavior here?
the antitrust behavior is two of the largest players in the gaming space combining. how is that going to promote competition? it's just going to make it easier for them to outspend and outlast and eventually ingest it's competition
Sony's gaming revenue is ~26 B
8 % of MSFT's revenue is from gaming = ~15 B
Nintendo 12 B
ABK 8 B
EA 7.5 B
( and that isn't including tencent and netease. i didn't bother trying to find figures for them but they are in the running here too )
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft doesn't have anything close to a monopoly on games. In terms of sales and reviewer scores, most of the top games weren't produced by Activision or other Microsoft studios. The only recent release I'm aware of was Starfield, and that was panned for failing to meet expectations, achieving under 88 on Metacritic.
How is buying up two of the biggest game studios not anti-competitive behavior? The apologism in this comment is hilarious. I hope your getting paid for shilling this hard.
Because the person you responded to just answered that question?
It is because Microsoft isn't anywhere close to being a monopoly in games.
You could have just read the comment to get the answer to your question.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#180Microsoft 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.
Kind of true, however Microsoft under Satya really killed the Windows desktop, burned bridges with the Windows developer community, that now has decided to re-focus on Win32, Windows Forms and WPF, ignoring pretty much anything else. Windows is still the best alternative to expensive Macs (on mosty countries for common folks), or the Year of Desktop Linux right around the corner, but not thanks to Satya.
I'd say that Windows and Office are the two areas that Satya didn't really touch or influence in much of any way and mostly let continue on autopilot as he focused on every other area of Microsoft.