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

351–360 of 590 posts

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

#351

Post by kridsdale3 »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #280
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 fact Steam / Valve has not jumped into that bandwagon speaks for itself. Its fine when Microsoft does like Xbox Game Pass because they have nothing to lose with it, and they gain people who may want to own some of those games, or who want it for the Microsoft games on the subscription.

A big part of Xbox Cloud Gaming, and also about ChatGPT, is MSFT built this huge cloud product and needs customers occupying its capacity to justify the capital expenditure.

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

#352

Post by redox99 »

meowtimemania wrote: post #335
wilg wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You're probably less sensitive to the compression.

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

#353

Post by manuelabeledo »

nerdjon wrote: post #256
manuelabeledo wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

Where?

The only one is cross-play, and let's be honest here, how would Microsoft justify not supporting cross-play, when their consoles are essentially PCs running a modified version of Windows?

> Cocky in this sense is Sony thinking they can get away with something because they were running high after the PS2 era.

I'm not sure what to think about this comment. Corporations aren't cocky. Sony isn't even a monopoly.

> 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.

They bought Rare and their exclusive IP, which became Microsoft exclusives. Same with Bungie, Bethesda, and now, more than likely, Activision-Blizzard.

In fact, that seems to be Microsoft modus operandi: buy big studios, lock popular franchises on their platforms. It is not disputable that Microsoft bought their way in gaming, as all the acquired studios had previous, very profitable, franchises they capitalized on.

> 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.

Right. I still don't understand how you couldn't agree on the fact that Microsoft is doing precisely that, but with whole franchises.

PlayStation owners won't be able to play, say, the new Elder Scrolls. It is likely that they won't be able to play CoD in three or four years. How would you feel if Sony Entertainment were to buy EA, making a bunch of sport franchises PlayStation exclusives?

You seem to be OK with that. That is a bit hypocritical, isn't it.

> 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.

So the answer to market dominance is... market consolidation?

And the answer to in house exclusives is... taking cross-platform games and making them Microsoft exclusives?

That is utter nonsense.

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

#354

Post by kridsdale3 »

Draiken wrote: post #312
nobodyandproud wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This same argument could be made for forcing all professional athletes to compete while severely drunk. It would be hilarious though.

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

#355

Post by anthonypasq »

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.

how can you possibly think monopoly is an issue when Microsoft is in clear third place in gaming behind Nintendo and Sony, and theres dozens of large publishers/studios and incredibly strong and thriving indie scene. I just dont get what you're talking about.

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

#356

Post by bogwog »

WhereIsTheTruth wrote: post #338
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 inco…

The internet discourse around this topic has been awful since it naturally attracts the console wars crowd, and people with an axe to grind against one of the console makers.

Personally, I think the entire "console" industry is just a bunch of predatory anti consumer bullshit, and all 3 of those companies should be forced to end a huge list of harmful business practices.

The part that always confuses me is why the heck does the government keep deciding to protect Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo's monopolies? These 3 companies always seem to get special treatment, such as with the DMCA exception and the recent California right to repair exception for game consoles. This literally only protects 3 nonessential entertainment companies, two of which aren't even from the US. The piracy argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, so I don't get it. ESA lobbyists are probably really good at their jobs I guess.

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

#357

Post by nebula8804 »

nerdjon wrote: post #313
enumjorge wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They have earned the right to be cocky. XBOX only ever was in the lead for like what maybe 1-3 years in the 360's lifespan? They got that by shipping an incorrect design(360 RROD) to market and consumers paid the price in lost gaming time and lots of frustration due to that mistake.

Every other instance of Microsoft being in this industry is either themselves being cocky (Xbox one launch), releasing a non compelling product, or just plain incompetence.

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

#358

Post by kridsdale3 »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #319
PeterStuer wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

MSFT as an employer and work environment has industry standard (very good) ESG / DEI stuff, and work life balance is apparently excellent.

Contrast with Activision's stewardship of grinding their workers in to bloody dust, and sprinkling sexual abuse on top. Kotic has to go. Before this acquisition became a news story the news was full of employee lawsuits and California itself initiating action against the awful management.

If life gets considerably better for Blizzard workers under new leadership, they can make better products.

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

#359

Post by kridsdale3 »

TerrifiedMouse wrote: post #320
ejlxsh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm paying now. Like $15/mo or so. And I download $300/mo worth of titles. So what's the concern?

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

#360

Post by manuelabeledo »

pjmlp wrote: post #294
manuelabeledo wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are comparing a 70%-30% market share split in consoles, to a virtually 100% for Microsoft in OEM PC sales, and a >85% for Nvidia in AI and research oriented GPUs [0]

Microsoft also controls ~95% of the PC gaming market, which makes up ~40% of the total video game market [1].

So remind me again, which studios were bullied by Sony to give up access to the majority of the market, in exchange for nothing?

[0] https://www.reuters.com/technology/amd-likely-offer-details-...

[1] https://www.gamesindustry.biz/report-pc-and-console-global-g....

Post reply on HN