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

291–300 of 590 posts

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

#291

Post by bluescrn »

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.

Short term gains, long-term destruction of beloved franchises

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

#292

Post by surgical_fire »

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?

That's typically not how employment works.

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

#293

Post by s1artibartfast »

edgyquant wrote: post #265
s1artibartfast wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it stopping anyone from coming in and competing? It's not like they're selling games at a loss to kill the competition.

They’re giving them away for a small monthly fee with their console subscription. How the hell is this any different, if not worse, than the anti-competitive behavior that Microsoft was brought to court for in the 90s?

So you think that Microsoft is going to run their gaming business at a loss until all the other gaming studios go out of business, then jack up the prices?

If not, I don't see what the problem is.

It isn't anti-completive to simply sell a product for a better price unless you are dumping (selling under cost to drive competitors out of business).

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

#294

Post by pjmlp »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #204
pjmlp wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a nice business you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it...

You make it sound like the poor gaming studios didn't read the contract documents and got trapped in a draconian nightmare. That's a naive take if I have ever seen one.

Indeed, likewise no one should say the same about OEMs doing deals with Microsoft about pre-installed Windows, or researchers with NVidia.

Those mean companies.

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

#295

Post by enumjorge »

SpaceManNabs wrote: post #276
nerdjon wrote: post #28

We likely won't see any real effects of this until the next generation of consoles, but I think in 3-4 years it is going to be very interesting to see what happens with gaming. Putting Nintendo aside since they really don't compete, they are kinda just in their own "Nintendo" space and that isn't a bad thing. But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in…

> 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. PS5 is widely regarded as the best playstation experience since the PS2. Great backwards compatibility and third-party support.

I don't think the parent comment is referring to PS5's success, but rather things like their recent significant price increases[0] to their PS Plus service, which is required for multiplayer for a lot of their games.

[0] https://www.ign.com/articles/sony-raises-price-of-playstatio...

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

#296

Post by nobodyandproud »

bparsons wrote: post #289
w0m wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think the technology is about 80% there. To my eye, the graphics and performance are the same as running the game locally. Provided you have a good internet connection, if you could just run a AAA game off of your crummy computer or tv, why would you buy an expensive graphics card? It is definitely where things are going.

It depends on the game.

Latency concerns, connection reliability, and bandwidth are all potential factors.

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

#297

Post by enlyth »

bparsons wrote: post #289
w0m wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think the technology is about 80% there. To my eye, the graphics and performance are the same as running the game locally. Provided you have a good internet connection, if you could just run a AAA game off of your crummy computer or tv, why would you buy an expensive graphics card? It is definitely where things are going.

You can't just have a "good" internet connection. For some games the difference between 30ms and 100ms latency is a great experience vs being almost unplayable. This is not exaggeration, this is fact and millions of gamers who actually measure their ping will tell you the same.

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

#298

Post by SalimoS »

WorldMaker wrote: post #253
w0m wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Sony just relanced their streaming service this month with on paper better spec than Microsoft (4K streaming)

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

#299

Post by hoten »

WorldMaker wrote: post #259
hoten wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I surely didn't give Bolts a fair shake, and never played any other titles after feeling I "lost" Banjo. I certainly need to try some of their other titles. Thanks for the recs

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

#300

Post by WorldMaker »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #288
WorldMaker wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Doesn't EA still have theirs?

Do they? I genuinely don't know and a quick search only adds confusion. I see a lot of news from when they went Beta in 2019 and then a lot of radio silence and I don't see any links to the service that don't have a "Technical Preview" or "Beta" next to them. That probably doesn't bode well as a signal for an active player base even if it is technically running.
Post reply on HN