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

311–320 of 590 posts

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

#311

Post by rrix2 »

cjsawyer wrote: post #302
enlyth wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The latency between a peripheral input and the visual feedback includes that latency between the client and server in a streaming scenario. The TV isn't smart enough to implement rollback netcode for every game.

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

#312

Post by Draiken »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #305
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.

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.

I can't see how that will ever fly with actual gamers.

Playing a game with latency is horrible, be it artificial or not. If you want the pinnacle of any esport, it will be played on LANs and never streamed.

It's a subpar experience that almost exclusively casual gamers deem acceptable.

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

#313

Post by nerdjon »

enumjorge wrote: post #295
SpaceManNabs wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Exactly this,

Yes the PS5 is successful and they are now making some cocky decisions because of it. I also believe that they made some cocky decisions with the PS5 given how well the PS4 was.

In the same regard they made some decisions with the PS3 because of how well the PS2 did. The exception then was gamers reacted negatively so they were forced to change. This time that is not happening.

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

#314

Post by teamspirit »

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)

Exactly right. For what it's worth, Nvidia's GeForce Now is (and has been) substantially better. Interestingly, since this deal, you can now play a number of GamePass games on GeForce Now. There was a several minute long wait time to play Starfield on GamePass but it was available on GFN via my GamePass subscription - with no wait time. Same goes with a number of UbiSoft titles.

I had the best experience, quality wise, with Stadia though.

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

#315

Post by lapetitejort »

enumjorge wrote: post #295
SpaceManNabs wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

Just a reminder of who is ultimately responsible for having to pay for multiplayer in the first place: Microsoft. The PC remains the final holdout for for free multiplayer. Since Microsoft owns a sizable portion of the PC tech stack, that may not last forever.

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

#316

Post by TerrifiedMouse »

nerdjon wrote: post #53
manuelabeledo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these grievances are more about changes in the architectural direction than anything else. I don't see how using the Cell processor could be considered "anti-consumer". After all, we are talking about a time when consoles didn't generally use "off the self" processors - Nintendo had a customized PowerPC, too. Using more generic architectures is a quite recent development. > Paying developers either for exclus…

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 you call "cocky" I call confident and maybe overambitious.

The Cell was a radical departure from processors of its day. Sony tried to bring heterogeneous computing to consumers on its dime. Unfortunately it didn't work out.

From a R&D point of view, old Sony was way more interesting. Today's Sony, the "non-cocky" Sony according to you, just slap the latest AMD APU into a box and call it a day.

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

#317

Post by twiceaday »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #305
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.

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.

Reasonable but irrelevant arguments. Esport games are essentially defined by their demand for low network latency which is precisely the main difficulty with cloud gaming.

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

#318

Post by HDThoreaun »

Kranar wrote: post #180
pjmlp wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Satya's entire strategy seems to be going all in on turning microsoft into the one stop shop enterprise productivity SAAS company. Office is their main product at this point. I don't see how you can say he didn't touch or influence it.

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

#319

Post by TerrifiedMouse »

PeterStuer wrote: post #310
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.

Like MS has a good track record with improving studios they acquire ... Studios under them seem to succeed despite them not because of them.

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

#320

Post by TerrifiedMouse »

ejlxsh wrote: post #26
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.

Chances are games will be added to the gamepass, meaning we get these for essentially free.

> meaning we get these for essentially free.

There is no such thing as "free". We will pay for it later.

Post reply on HN