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

301–310 of 590 posts

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

#301

Post by trelane »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #79
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.

Microsoft will likely just let them keep operating as they do now, providing money and reaping any profits. They'll only step in directly if the studios are having problems they can't handle themselves, or performing very poorly. They want the profit, not as much to direct everything on a micro-level. EDIT: They will of course make more titles Windows/XBox exclusive too, which makes sense considering the investment.

> Microsoft will likely just let them keep operating as they do now, providing money and reaping any profits.

Yeah, it's not like Microsoft ever bought a game studio that was making a highly-anticipated game, then made them release it as an XBox / PC Exclusive or anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(franchise)

https://www.halopedia.org/Halo:_Combat_Evolved_for_Macintosh

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

#302

Post by cjsawyer »

enlyth wrote: post #297
bparsons wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The latency between peripheral input and visual feedback is much more important than the latency between a game client and server. The servers have all sorts of mitigation strategies to compensate. For inputs, it’s all on the human. Which feels bad.

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

#303

Post by motoxpro »

koromak wrote: post #278
JohnMakin wrote: post #107

Normally 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.

Yes, giving monopolies more power has historically been good for consumers

Ironically, in the age of the internet it has brought things like access to the entire planets information for free, connection with everyone in the world for free, almost free same day shipping, etc. Not saying there aren't trade offs (you have to look at ads) but broadly speaking, it's never been better to be a consumer than right now.

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

#304

Post by wilg »

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.

I have gigabit fiber and somehow Xbox Cloud Gaming looks like shit. I don’t know how anyone uses it! (On Ethernet, in LA)

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

#305

Post by nobodyandproud »

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.

Here's one usecase where I see cloud gaming adding value: esports.

With cloud gaming it's possible to playing field far more, because competitions can now force the same latency by introducing artificial latency.

Cloud gaming also eliminates cheats like wall hacks (or fog of war removal), which is currently possible because the game client and rendering engine all run on a local machine.

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

#306

Post by jayd16 »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #38
pjmlp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PS2Linux, the way PS3 Linux was a downgrade to PS2Linux, and later removed via firmware update, for example.

That's hardly on their "gaming space", like OP said.

They made it pretty impossible to use so it's not fair to say it wasn't in a consumer space.

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

#307

Post by wilg »

izzydata wrote: post #20

It's strange to see some gamers praise this acquisition as if it will have any positive effect on some of the games they enjoy. In no world will Microsoft decreasing the competition going to be a good thing for consumers.

The relevant competition is between Xbox and PlayStation exclusive titles. Xbox has essentially no exclusive titles that are any good, while PlayStation has many. It will make Xbox more competitive, theoretically. Though I don’t think Activision Blizzard has any great games these days anyway.

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

#308

Post by w0m »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #38
pjmlp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PS2Linux, the way PS3 Linux was a downgrade to PS2Linux, and later removed via firmware update, for example.

That's hardly on their "gaming space", like OP said.

still pissed me off when i had the option of losing online gaming or losing console access to my ps3.

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

#309

Post by nirav72 »

wilg wrote: post #304
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 have gigabit fiber and somehow Xbox Cloud Gaming looks like shit. I don’t know how anyone uses it! (On Ethernet, in LA)

I have 1 gbps as well and it has worked fine for me. Especially if I'm sitting close to the my AP or even better when connected via ethernet. In some cases, I couldn't tell the difference between locally installed game or cloud. Games like Lego Star wars Skywalker saga or Ghost Recon Wildlands work really well. Although I haven't tried any fast paced online FPS games yet.

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

#310

Post by PeterStuer »

izzydata wrote: post #20

It's strange to see some gamers praise this acquisition as if it will have any positive effect on some of the games they enjoy. In no world will Microsoft decreasing the competition going to be a good thing for consumers.

I think at least as far as Blizzard is concerned the prevailing mood amongst players is given the current state of their games, chances are any change would be better than no change.
Post reply on HN