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

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

#411

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 10:42 PM UTC

edgyquant wrote: post #265

s1artibartfast wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it stopping anyone from coming in and competing? It's not like they're selling games at a loss to kill the competition.

They’re giving them away for a small monthly fee with their console subscription. How the hell is this any different, if not worse, than the anti-competitive behavior that Microsoft was brought to court for in the 90s?

> How the hell is this any different

it is significantly different because back then Microsoft was close to being a monopoly in the relevant market.

Thats the difference. Microsoft is not that in video games right now.

Giving stuff away for free or cheap and bundling is completely fine if the company doing it isn't even close to being a monopoly.

> than the anti-competitive behavior that Microsoft was brought to court for in the 90s?

The anti competitive behavior that they were brought to court for was not bundling.

Instead, it was for being close to a monopoly while also engaging in bundling.

Bundling is only anti-competitive if the company doing it is close to being a monopoly.

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

#412

Post by gigatexal » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 10:42 PM UTC

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…

The SC2 professional scene is doing really well I think. Lots of games being played at the highest levels. And tons of content for it on YouTube with some of the best play by play commentators out there. I really enjoy that.

What deep pocketed Microsoft could do is really up the ante and make the prize money for tournaments of say Quake (they own ID) or SC2 and others really high and attract even more buzz etc etc.

I just hope these games and IP don’t just become afterthoughts. Will we get a demonic hell on earth new doom game? Will we get an even more hellish Diablo game? Will we get a SC3?

With all these game studios under one roof I wonder how many games will get axed in the pursuit of “synergies”?

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

#413

Post by mehlmao » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 10:42 PM UTC

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.

I'm surprised, I had pretty much the opposite experience. I used Xbox Cloud Gaming to play through Halo 5 (the only game in the series to not have a PC port) in four sessions over a few months, wrapping up last weekend.

I'm on a high spec desktop playing with an Xbox controller connected by USB. The desktop is on Ethernet, 200 Mbps down / 30 Mbps up.

In my experience, the game frequently failed to start. Most often I would watch the rocket ship loading screen for about a minute, then close it and retry. Probably about 1 in 10 times the game would start instantly, otherwise it would display the loading animation forever.

My understanding is that the game runs in 1080p on the original hardware (launch Xbox One) and runs in 4k on modern hardware (Series X). I'm not sure what the source resolution is for Cloud Streaming, but visually it looked like an old YouTube video. The game was designed with a large visual dynamic range. Video compression made it very hard to see in dark areas (think The Long Night episode of Game of Thrones). In colorful areas with more contrast I experienced lots of macroblocking.

Input lag made the game very frustrating to play. The Halo series is known for having generous aim assist, even so I found precision weapons useless and too hard to line up a shot. Occasional dropped button inputs got me killed too.

All-in-all I can't recommend Cloud Streaming to anyone. Looking at their catalog, maybe it would be more acceptable for games with limited motion like Phoenix Wright or Car Mechanic Simulator, but those run natively on cell phones or low-end hardware. Even then repeatedly failing to start a session is a turn off. Experiencing all of these problems every time I played makes me think it's not just a fluke.

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

#414

Post by didibus » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 10:43 PM UTC

jrmg wrote: post #401

redox99 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Stadia worked a lot better than xCloud though.

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

#415

Post by rollcat » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 10:46 PM UTC

j4_hnews wrote: post #395

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…

I rediscovered Brood War during Covid (free to play). 99% of matchups I lost. But there was one 4+ hour 1v1 marathon on a huge map. Lost that one too but what an incredible game. So many comebacks on both sides. So close. Matching skills is key to a GG.

Brood War is incredibly tough for newcomers. Skill-wise, the mid-F rank (barely above the rock bottom) is the equivalent of SC2's low diamond (roughly middle of the playerbase) - people are either this good, or drop out.

If you're looking for a more fair match, and don't mind SC2 being a very different game, you should give it a try. If you can max out on literally anything before 15:00 and a-move your opponent, you will probably get a 50% winrate.

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

#416

Post by munk-a » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 10:46 PM UTC

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.

It would fly for mid-tier e-sports. A lot of those matches are played remotely and the difference between a Chinese player playing an Argentinian player and a Chilean player playing an Argentinian player can be quite noticeable. Being able to level that playing field would be excellent.

Most e-sports events don't fly players into an arena - that's only for really high budget events.

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

#417

Post by cool_dude85 » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 10:47 PM UTC

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…

Good luck to SC2. I hope they're smart enough not to touch SCBW and leave it as is.

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

#418

Post by s1artibartfast » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 10:47 PM UTC

fernandotakai wrote: post #376

s1artibartfast wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you think that Microsoft is going to run their gaming business at a loss until all the other gaming studios go out of business, then jack up the prices? If not, I don't see what the problem is. It isn't anti-completive to simply sell a product for a better price unless you are dumping (selling under cost to drive competitors out of business).

> So you think that Microsoft is going to run their gaming business at a loss until all the other gaming studios go out of business, then jack up the prices? i wish people realize that king is probably earning more than activision and blizzard combined. and guess what? king is a mobile app company, nothing to do with xbox's main business.

That's a really good point. It's also weird to talk about the customer impact of monopolies when the cash cow is garbage free to play games

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

#419

Post by didibus » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 10:49 PM UTC

bogwog wrote: post #356

WhereIsTheTruth wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 he…

Agreed. Too many people debating it like arguing for their favorite football team.

It does not matter what the industry is, a 70 billion acquisition from one of the only trillion-dollar companies just is not a good thing.

We live in an unprecedented amount of consolidation, meaning that in every market, there are less and less players competing against each other. How is that a good thing exactly?

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

#420

Post by agentgumshoe » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 10:49 PM UTC

I still don't get how $69B is a reasonable deal. Acti-Blizzard have been making 7-8B net the last few years, so it will take MS 10 years assuming constant returns just to break even. Why is it a good deal, especially in gaming. What does MS want with the customer base?