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

401–410 of 590 posts

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

#401

Post by jrmg »

redox99 wrote: post #352
meowtimemania wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t know - I started gaming again during the pandemic after trying Stadia on a whim. It worked great over 100 megabit DSL. Amazingly so. I went in super skeptical but was blown away. Perhaps being in the Bay Area helped?

I consider myself pretty attuned to (and annoyed by) compression artifacts in streaming video.

I did end up buying an Xbox instead of using Stadia though - I couldn’t get over paying full price for games I didn’t actually own.

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

#402

Post by artursapek »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #390
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.

Steam basically has a monopoly on PC gaming distro

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

#403

Post by CobrastanJorji »

sandworm101 wrote: post #336
WorldMaker wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the contrary, I'm quite happy about "cloud gaming app" because all the DRM-infected software stays remote. I get a web browser or whatever, and they pipe video to me and pipe input back up. Really lightweight on my side, less room for insane anti-cheat whatevers. Now, the connection issues, the online-only requirements, the resolution, the lag, etc, these things are less good. But I really like the software part.

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

#404

Post by slaymaker1907 »

KeplerBoy wrote: post #368
MuffinFlavored wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean World of Warcraft will eventually be playable on Ubisoft's competitor to Nvidia's GeforceNow?

Does Ubisoft even have a competitor to Geforce Now? But presumably they could sell their rights or license them to others, so who knows how this will actually play out.

Yeah, I think the key downside for Microsoft is they can't just make them exclusive to Xbox cloud gaming and they have to treat the Activision titles as if they were buying them from a 3rd party studio.

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

#406

Post by CobrastanJorji »

WorldMaker wrote: post #284
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.

One thing I see as an ancient PC Gamer is that Activision also sits on one of the largest hoards of IPs. Not just "cool" IPs from today's games (a lot of people are mentioning Activision's odd/bad stewardship of Blizzard, of course), but Activision bought a lot of the classic publishers in its history as a massive M&A shop. The legacies of Infocom, Sierra, Knowledge Adventure, Davidson, and many more both well known…

Are you saying I might see Torrin's Passage 2 now?

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

#407

Post by didibus »

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.

15 years is a long time though. I suspect we're not far away from being able to sell a 100$ device, that can AI reconstruct and upscale a super compressed video feed, so that you can stream with lower latencies or even with worse connections.

Nvidia seems to be leading the way here.

But imagine in the cloud, they only needed to render games at 320p, and then they'd stream it compressed at low bitrate using H266 (assuming it's out in a few years). Then your "console", only needs to AI regenerate and upscale the feed, and it ends up looking photo-real or close to it.

You could even explore methods of compression on the video that the AI is best as reconstructing from.

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

#408

Post by rollcat »

eric-hu wrote: post #379
rollcat wrote: post #369

I keep my fingers crossed for the revival of the StarCraft franchise. I grew up with the game, and it's kinda sad to see the current state of SC2: old bugs, new bugs, community trying to take over the processes but having a very bumpy ride, opaque decision making (de-facto spokespersons/community figures under muddy NDAs), and unfortunately all our 2010 fears (no local/LAN play!) coming true, when server outages are…

As a StarCraft 2 fan, I’m actually quite happy with the current game balance. The last two rounds of balance patches from the community were far better for the playability and fun of the game. It was alarming when Blizzard cut funding for GSL and it looked like the Korean scene was practically done, but Afreeca and the community pulled together and kept that prize pool interesting enough for the Korean pros.

I'm glad the age of proxy void rays and queen walks is gone, but there's a lot to be desired from the process. My main grievance is that the community members who form the balance council are under some insane NDA, they're afraid of even discussing what is in the NDA, let alone what they're working on.

You end up with a design by committee with minimal community input, which feeds the cycle back into balance whine shitposts and YT reaction videos. It's arguably better than nothing, but far from healthy.

I miss David Kim.

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

#409

Post by stale2002 »

edgyquant wrote: post #262
stale2002 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the person you responded to just answered that question? It is because Microsoft isn't anywhere close to being a monopoly in games. You could have just read the comment to get the answer to your question.

Show me where I mentioned the word monopoly. You can’t, because I said anti-competitive.

Ok, and it is not anti-competitive because microsoft isn't anywhere close to being a monopoly.

Thats the answer to the question. This answer was already given to you.

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

#410

Post by didibus »

vel0city wrote: post #377
WorldMaker wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

xCloud (Microsoft's) and Geforce Now (nVidia's) both allegedly have large player bases. The "neat" thing about xCloud is that you can try it for free under most Game Pass subscriptions. I think that is actually where "cloud gaming" currently excels, as a faster/better/glorified replacement for the old "Demo" games and modes. (Try a Game Pass game for a bit without downloading it, on a day where you expect few connect…

> needs a strong internet connection I've used Xbox Cloud Gaming on a cheap $300 Walmart laptop all over my home on WiFi, several different cafe/bar WiFi networks, and several places tethered to my phone without any real playability concerns. I might not recommend it if you're playing some kind of twitch shooter kind of game, but I've played a lot of Forza, Starfield, Gotham Knights, and Ghost Recon Wildlands on it.

You must not be sensitive to lag or low latencies. Some players have no issue playing a 30fps games with dips into the 10s for example. Others do.

For me, it's just simply not up to the quality I can enjoy the game at.

Post reply on HN