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

381–390 of 590 posts

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

#381

Post by ryandrake »

vel0city wrote: post #374
sandworm101 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

It all depends on what you're looking for in your gaming. I rarely replay old games. I'm often on the go, and don't really want to spend the money on a high end gaming rig nor a console at home. So from my non-gaming laptop I can hop on Xbox Cloud Gaming and play recent games in high quality pretty much anywhere. I've been able to play on cafe wifi, tethered to my phone, on wifi around the house, loads of places. And…

Definitely depends on how you approach gaming. To me, gaming is something you have dedicated gear for, set aside dedicated time for, sit down somewhere comfortable, remove all distractions, turn down the lights, and so on, like watching a movie. The idea of playing a game "on the go" is as ridiculous to me as watching a movie "on the go" (or, really doing anything on the go--when I'm going somewhere, that's what I'm doing, I'm not doing something else).

To others, I guess picking up a casual game in a cafe might be interesting... Maybe they're a great target market for Cloud Gaming, I dunno. I sure am not!

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

#382

Post by noqc »

anthonypasq wrote: post #355
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.

It is the purpose of copyright, explicitly, to incentivize creative work with the promise of monopoly power over its distribution. So it's a bit disingenuous to assert that microsoft is not a monopoly because other game companies exist.

Tech companies have long understood, and in fact may be entirely predicated upon the understanding that you can leverage one monpoly to create another.

If I make a game that can only run on your platform, then you gain a monopoly on platforms that can run that game. These platforms then become not fungible, and therefore de facto monopolies. There is a certain amount of "we haven't tried to port our game to other platforms", which probably shouldn't be an explicit violation of the law, but entering an exclusivity contract with a game studio is, in my opinion, a pretty clear restraint of trade.

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

#384

Post by ihumanable »

nirav72 wrote: post #309
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 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.

I've been playing Starfield and it's been fine for me. Occasionally the quality degrades and you can see this very obvious vertical wipe as it syncs back up, but it happens rarely enough for me that I don't mind it.

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

#385

Post by jonhohle »

nebula8804 wrote: post #361
w0m wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What were you going to do on that thing anyway? Run a Mandelbrot set? The thing has like no ram! Its just an embedded device to run games.

Justifying the removal because of its limitations isn’t fair. It was an advertised feature of the system. If I bought a PS3 to use as a Linux desktop, online multiplayer game machine, and SACD player based on their advertisement and then found I had to get rid of the first two to keep online gaming, on a $600 console, I’d be pretty upset.

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

#386

Post by amarant »

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…

And here I thought GeeForce Now was the de-facto leader in the cloud gaming market.

I use it regularly for single player games and it's quite nice! AFAIK they have the biggest supported library yet that is still my biggest issue with it: it doesn't support some of the games I'd like to play on it!

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

#387

Post by DerekL »

SeenNotHeard wrote: post #130

As a side note, this means that Microsoft now owns the copyrights to all of Infocom's interactive fiction: Zork, Enchanter, Deadline, HHGttG, etc.

Not HHGttG. After a time, the rights reverted back to the author of the original work (Douglas Adams). Same for the Shogun adaptation.

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

#388

Post by linkgoron »

noqc wrote: post #382
anthonypasq wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is the purpose of copyright, explicitly, to incentivize creative work with the promise of monopoly power over its distribution. So it's a bit disingenuous to assert that microsoft is not a monopoly because other game companies exist. Tech companies have long understood, and in fact may be entirely predicated upon the understanding that you can leverage one monpoly to create another. If I make a game that can only…

All consoles have console exclusives. Nintendo has Mario/Zelda/Metroid/Pokemon, Sony has The Last of Us, and God of War Ragnarok, and others.

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

#389

Post by jonhohle »

eigenket wrote: post #348
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've argued about this deal on Twitter at length, and the prevailing sentiment of those who favor this acquisition comes down to one thing, and one thing only: getting more AAA games "for free" on Gamepass. Discovering why these people call this an "increase in competition" will be an exercise for future generations of intelligence researchers.

I can only speak for myself. I was pretty keen on starcraft and starcraft 2 back in the day, and I made a decision a few years back that blizzard wasn't the sort of company I wanted to support with my money anymore.

Before or after the Activision aquisition?

I never played WoW, but I think every other game up to D3 is a masterpiece.

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

#390

Post by zeroonetwothree »

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.

Gaming is about as far from a monopoly as you can get.
Post reply on HN