Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard • Hacker News Board

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

#331

Post by ElectricalUnion » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 8:27 PM UTC

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 servers have all sorts of mitigation strategies to compensate.

I haven't seen any papers where cloud gaming servers implement rollback logic on your inputs in behalf of the game developer.

Even assuming games that do support native rollback, most rollback netcode implicitly considers you're local to your game client, not in some relay box 7 frames or more in the past.

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

#332

Post by skupig » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 8:29 PM UTC

njovin wrote: post #54

eigenket wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly its because Activision/Blizzard is such an obviously shitty terrible company that any deal that sees cool IPs taken out of their hands is seen as a positive thing.

Which games has MS shown good stewardship of? Halo is a shell of what it once was and has snubbed the players with false promises in recent iterations (couch co-op used to be a staple of Halo but they reneged on their promise to include it with the latest). AFAIK they haven't had any good exclusive IP for Xbox in a while. They've had a few dynamite hits (ex. Sunset Overdrive) but haven't followed up on any that I'm a…

>Halo is a shell of what it once

I don't think this is a point against Microsoft, they owned both Halo and Bungie during the golden era. The quality dropped off sharply once Bungie decided to work on other projects and Microsoft had to put together a new team to replace them. If they're still capable of supporting game studios however they did with Bungie, it could be exactly what Blizzard needs.

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

#333

Post by newsclues » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 8:33 PM UTC

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.

As a gamer, I view the cloud gaming market to be an odd thing to argue over because I don’t care about it all.

It’s the opposite of what I want!

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

#334

Post by froggertoaster » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 8:35 PM UTC

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.

Aren't you being ever so slightly myopic? That is one game out of literal dozens.

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

#335

Post by meowtimemania » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 8:37 PM UTC

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 100mbs internet and it works near perfectly for me. For me graphics are better on xbox cloud gaming because my xbox one s can't run games with the highest graphics settings. Maybe I'm geographically close to one of the xbox cloud data centers while you're far away?

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

#336

Post by sandworm101 » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 8:38 PM UTC

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…

>> so far unfinished cloud gaming app.

As a gamer, few things would turn me away from a potential purchase more than the phrase "cloud gaming app". It sounds like DRM-infected bloatware ready to kick me from a server the moment my connection even hiccups. Only "cloud gaming app, now by Microsoft" could be worse.

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

#337

Post by paulddraper » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 8:40 PM UTC

Sebguer wrote: post #286

koromak wrote: post #275

I'm not even worked up about gaming specifically. I just think the FTC is failing horrifically at its job of protecting consumers from monopoly. The SEC is failing on its end too. Everything will just get slowly worse.

I think this is a bit unfair, there's a real significant FTC upswell happening, but they're contending with decades of atrophy and an antitrust lobby that is extraordinarily powerful, not to mention the number of monopoly-friendly judges that are sitting in some of the most vital courts.

Atrophy of.....the FTC

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

#338

Post by WhereIsTheTruth » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 8:40 PM UTC

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…

You just repeat Microsoft's arguments, that's flawed and biased

A little reminder: https://twitter.com/shinobi602/status/1712869694833643528

Since 2018:

- Sony: 10 acquisitions

- Microsoft: 15 acquisitions + 12 with this one, total: 27

How many 1st party games Microsoft have released this gen? How many for Sony? Yeah right.. Don't you think that's where the problem lies?

Is "Sony cocky", or is Microsoft lazy and incompetent?

Sounds like it's the latter + hardcore lobbying (or corruption at this point) all around the world, yet again..

Nintendo "don't compete"? Nintendo "is just in their own 'Nintendo'" space? Oh come on..

https://www.ign.com/games/the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-k...

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

#339

Post by m463 » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 8:40 PM UTC

addajones wrote: post #273

People are so excited for cloud gaming, and Xbox Game Pass growing now... The price will continue to go up up up up up up. I remember when YouTube TV was $35/mo now it's $73/mo. Game Pass and all cloud gaming will slowly cost more until it's close to 1/2 the price a month of a game, and slowly creep up from there. Sad.

I'm not excited for cloud gaming.

Really, try GOG. You can download and install skyrim, and play it offline with no DRM or cloud/online/advertising/tracking nonsense.

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

#340

Post by yowlingcat » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 8:40 PM UTC

micromacrofoot wrote: post #218

yowlingcat wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Absolutely. I would go so far as to say healthcare is essentially operated by regulatory capture given how deeply the Medicare market leads where the rest of the market directionally goes.