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

211–220 of 590 posts

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

#211

Post by wredue »

gdulli wrote: post #176
wredue wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So Microsoft failing for a decade to bring titles to their console means that it’s okay to remove titles from Sony gamers?

The consoles today don’t have identical catalogs. That’s where your argument falls apart. One company made a decade of bad decisions which caused them to fall behind.

In a fair market where Microsoft didn’t have trillions in resources to just steal the market, Phil Spencer would be fired and Xbox gaming would be looking for better direction.

Also, Microsoft was granted moving forward on the basis that their claim “the games would be more accessible to everyone” was true. Yet you are here arguing that this will not be the case. Which is it? We all know what Microsoft plans are.

Personally, I am now hoping for Sony and Nintendo to pick up major publishers and make the content exclusive just so I can see the Xbox fanboys lose their shit over how its anti-competitive when they lose games, but not anti-competitive when they rob experiences from others.

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

#212

Post by AlexandrB »

e63f67dd-065b wrote: post #93
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.

He's being rewarded for growing net income roughly a hundred fold between 2010 and now. I think it's fair that he gets a huge chunk of the value he's created for investors.

What about the value that the actual developers created for investors? Oh, that's right, many of them got fired for their efforts.

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

#213

Post by deelowe »

wfleming wrote: post #160
deelowe wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His tenure post acquisition is governed by the acquisition agreement. Microsoft isn't "allowing" anything.

MS negotiated the agreement. So “allowed” seems like a fair description of the contents of a contract they negotiated and agreed to.

Without knowing all the details, I think it's fair to assume this is a fair approach. I'm sure there are all sorts of legal details to work through that make axing him immediately untenable. 3 months seems like a reasonable timeline.

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

#214

Post by w0m »

gardaani wrote: post #209

UK regulators were objecting the deal because they were concerned that the takeover would reduce competition in cloud gaming. Microsoft gave game streaming rights to Ubisoft, which made the Activision deal possible: https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/13/why-microsoft-had-to-relin... "For Ubisoft, this deal means it has full and exclusive cloud-streaming rights to all current commercially available Activision games, as we…

well, assuming there's actually a cloud gaming market. A fact that's still up for debate I think.

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

#215

Post by selimthegrim »

songbird23 wrote: post #142
SteveNuts wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is the optics of allowing him to continue working a single day after Microsoft takes over. It sends a message that it's okay.

ive never heard of optics being used in context like this

It is used in the PR sense

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

#216

Post by huytersd »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #155
huytersd wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m reading this as he was a regular guy that may have asked some women out a few times given the hyperbole and dissembling around this entire thing.

To put into context, he was a close associate of one Jeffery Epstein, and in his book of clients and close associates. Why? Hard to say, Epstein wasn’t really in the games industry. That’s really just the beginning of it, Kotick is quite a prolific pos himself: https://nypost.com/2021/11/16/activision-ceo-threatened-to-h... . And he’s alleged to have covered up sexual assault at the company, which given the Epstein c…

Everyone famous in the 90s in the eastern US was an associate of Epstein. He was a rich famous guy, it’s sort of expected.

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

#217

Post by AlexandrB »

kcb wrote: post #163
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?

His employees that made the actual games?

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

#218

Post by micromacrofoot »

yowlingcat wrote: post #154
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that there's a "fair" market left in the US is an abject joke. At BEST, there are a handful of companies divvying up a market collusively. At worst, and increasingly commonly, we have effective duopolies that juuuust skate the currently en vogue legal definitions to create 2 different walled gardens. Name for me a market (of financial significance) which isn't currently dominated by two mini-monopolies, and…

I would say healthcare. With that said, many sub-verticals of the industry are in fact quite dominated by duopolies or triopolies.

healthcare has its own special kind of regulatory capture too

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

#219

Post by huytersd »

AlexandrB wrote: post #217
kcb wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 employees that made the actual games?

What an asinine, worthless comment. Yes they get some equity too.

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

#220

Post by endemic »

hoten wrote: post #147
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.

I'm sure it's more complicated than this, but I still hold a grudge against MS for seemingly destroying Rare. I never really looked into it but at a younger age I understood MS bought them and then they never made another actual Banjo game, which I always assumed wouldn't have happened sans acquisition.

I thought this article (https://www.eurogamer.net/who-killed-rare) was pretty insightful.
Post reply on HN