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

251–260 of 590 posts

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

#251

Post by MikusR »

gainda wrote: post #178
VirusNewbie wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fi…

Number 4 and 6 are merging to become number 3.

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

#252

Post by burnte »

everforward wrote: post #202
opportune wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!” In fairness to Microsoft, "half-baked" would be how I describe all of Bethesda's previous releases as well. I don't think Starfield is that far off how Skyrim or Fallout 4 was on release. Starfield's a long shot from where Skyrim and Fallout are now af…

> > 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!” > In fairness to Microsoft, "half-baked" would be how I describe all of Bethesda's previous releases as well. I don't think Starfield is that far off how Skyrim or Fallout 4 was on release. Starfield's a long shot from where Skyrim and Fallout are now after years of patches and DLC, but I think not far from where they started.

Jedi Survivor has been out for 6 months and it's still got major problems. Imagine being in the middle of a saber battle and the game stops responding to your attack key/button. I've paused the game, gone into Control Panel, tested that my controller is still good, gone back to the game, it just won't respond to the command. And then suddenly it will start again. Same with any button, they randomly fail. And it's got to compile all the shaders EVERY time you launch the game, no caching. All AAA game studios push out broken games on launch.

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

#253

Post by WorldMaker »

w0m wrote: post #214
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.

Right. Microsoft is just about the only player left in cloud gaming because Sony, Amazon and Google all tried and gave up in different ways, in part because none of them really found a market nor an audience. I heard Sony is trying again but leasing some cloud servers from Microsoft Azure's white box version of xCloud, ironically.

That last part is also why I think the Ubisoft deal is probably funny. Rumors are Ubi is also leasing much of their cloud gaming from Azure's white box version of xCloud, so Microsoft is likely still going to get paid for people playing Activision things through Ubi's so far unfinished cloud gaming app.

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

#254

Post by Capricorn2481 »

crazygringo wrote: post #238
Capricorn2481 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like Sony either so it's a bit weird to find out you're turning this into a "console war" thing. I find that mentality really embarrassing. My beef is with Microsoft essentially owning the planet. - Microsoft dwarfs Sony as a company, so I don't know why you're painting them as an underdog with their back against the wall. - The amount of gaming IP Microsoft owns also dwarfs Sony. The concern is not that one…

Please don't call my point of view embarrassing -- that's uncalled for. You can disagree, but let's not make it personal. Of course it's a console war thing, it's always been a console war thing. That's literally the definition of the market we're talking about here. What the rest of Microsoft's business does, or the rest of Sony's business does, outside of gaming, has nothing to do with anything here. Buying Activis…

> Please don't call my point of view embarrassing -- that's uncalled for.

I'm not calling your position embarrassing, I'm calling the position you think I have embarrassing. What's uncalled for is reducing what I'm saying to this

> I don't think the attitude of "let Sony's gaming business be as big as it already is, but don't allow Microsoft's gaming business to try to expand to match Sony's" is healthy. That's literally anti-competitive.

And then getting pissy when I point out that you tried to make it sound like I'm some shill for Sony. I'm literally in other parts of this thread also criticizing Sony. The reality is you're saying untrue, uneducated things about the state of the gaming market. Again Microsoft is already much bigger than Sony's gaming market. Christ, Activison is almost as big as Sony's gaming market.

> What the rest of Microsoft's business does, or the rest of Sony's business does, outside of gaming, has nothing to do with anything here.

Again, Microsoft > Microsoft Gaming > Sony Gaming.

And why would we pretend other parts of Microsofts business don't exist just because Sony isn't also doing it?

Who has their operating system on billions of computers, where they can sell games?

Who has the best capacity to use AI in their businesses? AI is the next step for effective anticheat, which is otherwise a losing battle.

Who is the only feasible steward of the language that lots of games are developed on?

Who owns LinkedIn, where game developers look for jobs?

Who owns the highest selling game ever and has already filled it with microtransactions, essentially printing money?

I don't see how we can ignore any of those things. I look at all of this and it's alarming how fucked we are if Microsoft decides to make all our lives worse, and that's just in gaming. The worst Sony could do has already been done cause Sony are shitheels in their own way.

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

#255

Post by crazygringo »

Capricorn2481 wrote: post #254
crazygringo wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't call my point of view embarrassing -- that's uncalled for. You can disagree, but let's not make it personal. Of course it's a console war thing, it's always been a console war thing. That's literally the definition of the market we're talking about here. What the rest of Microsoft's business does, or the rest of Sony's business does, outside of gaming, has nothing to do with anything here. Buying Activis…

> Please don't call my point of view embarrassing -- that's uncalled for. I'm not calling your position embarrassing, I'm calling the position you think I have embarrassing. What's uncalled for is reducing what I'm saying to this > I don't think the attitude of "let Sony's gaming business be as big as it already is, but don't allow Microsoft's gaming business to try to expand to match Sony's" is healthy. That's liter…

> Again, Microsoft > Microsoft Gaming > Sony Gaming.

This is where you're wrong.

Microsoft gaming is around $15B in revenue per year. They sold 8.6 million Xboxes in 2022.

Sony gaming is around $30B in revenue per year. They sold 19 million Playstations in 2022.

Sony gaming is literally twice as big. Which is why it's fine for Microsoft to compete. (And see my edit in my previous comment.)

And please stop calling names or implying them. I'm not getting "pissy" and I've certainly never suggested you're a "shill". I'm done replying, because I have no interest in participating in a conversation with language like that.

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

#256

Post by nerdjon »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #166
nerdjon wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Right, but where are those examples?

I gave other examples in my post that you have not responded too.

> What does cocky even mean? These are corporations!

Not sure that changes anything. Cocky in this sense is Sony thinking they can get away with something because they were running high after the PS2 era.

> 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.

Ok? What exactly does that have to do with Microsoft? They bought rare in 2002. I am completely missing the point you are trying to make.

> 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 strongly disagree. However as I mentioned my key problem is paying for exclusive content. It is indefensible that I pay the same amount for a game on Xbox with LESS content than on PS5 because Sony paid money to try to boost the sales of their consoles.

Yes Microsoft has made mistakes, but Sony has made their own mistakes and every time they do its because they are cocky going into a new generation with a significant market advantage.

That is why I feel like Sony needs strong competition and we need these consoles to be much much closer in marketshare for both companies to actually have to fight for consumer dollars instead of Sony just getting away with whatever they want because they have the big splashy exclusive games.

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

#257

Post by hx8 »

ejlxsh wrote: post #222
hx8 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I do agree here, but also I think if a company is acquiring to give an even better service to their own users it's a good thing (as one of those users). I'm sure I read they've agreed to keep them cross-platform so it won't impact Playstation users (maybe a delay with new games being released on Playstation, like how FF16 isn't on Xbox yet) - but what I am really hoping for is the games simply become part of the Xbox…

For me personally, neither Activision nor Blizzard has released a game I wanted to play since Legacy of the Void (2015). This will not have any impact on how I play games for at least the next 3 years.

I have long term fears that month-to-month game subscriptions will eat the world and in 15 years people pay for games in the same way they currently pay for streaming videos ($10-$20/mo to many content providers).

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

#258

Post by burnte »

hypercube33 wrote: post #208
SeenNotHeard wrote: post #130

As a side note, this means that Microsoft now owns the copyrights to all of Infocom's interactive fiction: Zork, Enchanter, Deadline, HHGttG, etc.

Quake, Wolfenstein, elite force* *may have paramount cbs locking that up but Raven comes back to the family with id now

They already owned those when they bought Zenimax, who bought id (except for the Trek games).

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

#259

Post by WorldMaker »

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.

Rare still exists and I think seems to be at the top of their game.

Nuts & Bolts was a good Banjo game and close enough to "actual" for me. Sure, all the "building" mechanics were silly, but all the classic platforming was still there and the building mechanics just added more collectathons to series infatuated with collectathons. That felt very true to Banjo-Kazooie to me.

Rare's love affair with Kinect and building a lot of Kinect games would have never been questioned if it was a love affair with the Wii in the same time.

Similarly, overlooked treasures like Kameo and Viva Pinata would probably have tons of fans if they had released on Nintendo platforms.

Rare Replay reminded me that Rare has done three big pirate games in their history plus one of the most beloved sections of Banjo-Kazooie is pirate themed, so Sea of Thieves is just about the "Most Rare" that Rare has ever been. It's a delightful game and deserves the following that it has now. Hopefully "Safer Seas" in December will open up Sea of Thieves for more children and family play and for more players that can't yet see past the open-PvP to all the delightful Rare details and treasures inside.

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

#260

Post by Night_Thastus »

Hamuko wrote: post #246
Night_Thastus wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well of course. They're spending a lot of money, why wouldn't they make the titles of anything they acquire be Xbox/Windows exclusive? That increases their profits. More people buy Xboxes, more people are on their platform, etc. They have some contractual obligations that prevent them from doing it for everything , but they'll do it for anything they can. That's just business sense.

> why wouldn't they make the titles of anything they acquire be Xbox/Windows exclusive? "[Microsoft] submits that Microsoft has strong incentives to continue making ZeniMax games available for rival consoles (and their related storefronts). [...] Therefore, according to [Microsoft], Microsoft would not have the incentive to cease or limit making ZeniMax games available for purchase on rival consoles." https://ec.euro…

There may be some edge cases, but frankly I view it as typical corporate BS.

They were just making statements like that hoping that the deal would go through. Everything that they are legally able to, from now on, will most likely be MS exclusive.

Post reply on HN