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

441–450 of 590 posts

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

#441

Post by MobileVet »

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…

RTS is such a great genre. I know everyone loved StarCraft but I enjoyed Warcraft II and 3 more… along with C&C, Red Alert and Age of Empires. Not sure why.

Warcraft 3 was a great balance between micro and macro management due to the Hero concept. SC always just felt like a game of numbers… but I am sure I just wasn’t as experienced.

Regardless I would love it if the genre stayed alive and I am glad Age is continually updated and stable.

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

#442

Post by aleph_minus_one »

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.

At that time (before GPGPU become big for such purposes) scientists used PS3s to build cheap (much cheaper than IBM's server offerings containing a Cell processors) computing cluster for HPC. These PS3 computation clusters are were hard to program, but if you managed it, they were really fast (for their time).

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

#443

Post by tester756 »

Hamuko wrote: post #232
tester756 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CD Projekt Red? 2 of the biggest games ever belongs to them (Witcher and Cyberpunk)

CD Projekt Red isn't a publisher, it's a developer. CD Projekt is a publisher. And arguably having two IPs, both which are not original IPs, is not that huge.

>CD Projekt Red isn't a publisher, it's a developer. CD Projekt is a publisher.

Is this distinction important here?

>And arguably having two IPs, both which are not original IPs, is not that huge.

They know how to create huuuge hype and good products and that's what matters.

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

#444

Post by deprecative »

hyperhopper wrote: post #430
kridsdale3 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The same thing that happened with Netflix. Everybody loved it when it started, now things come in and out of the catalog, quality has gone down, prices have gone up ads have been added, and you need to subscribe to 10 other services as well. Why are people acting like gamepass is a good thing

Because it is for now. If they mess with it then it'll not be a good deal and folks will leave it.

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

#445

Post by PoignardAzur »

saghm wrote: post #429
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?

I don't think "cloud gaming" would include it just because it's a multiplayer game with shared servers; my understanding of cloud gaming is that it refers to games being installed only on the server side with the "UI" being streamed to the player rather than the game itself running locally. I could see some potential ambiguity around what constitutes a full local game versus a client streaming a cloud game, but the W…

Overwatch 2 is on Steam, yeah. That read like a pretty desperate move by Blizzard so keep the game relevant after they announced they were dropping PVE.

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

#446

Post by deprecative »

burnte wrote: post #250
w0m wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory is Mobile gaming (King) was the key here. Outside of that it's simply to try and narrow the (surprisingly large) Exclusives gap Sony has been enjoying the last decade or so. > They own all the IP required to do a followup to Fallout New Vegas and NOTHING I mean - didn't the team that would work on that launch Starfield in the last month ?

> I mean - didn't the team that would work on that launch Starfield in the last month? Yep. Although one could argue there are are other studios who could be tapped to make a sequel.

No, actually. New Vegas was not developed by Bethesda. It was published by Bethesda. It was developed by Obsidian which Microsoft also owns.

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

#447

Post by chrisco255 »

rollcat wrote: post #415
j4_hnews wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

SC2's matching engine and ladder is designed to generate ~50% win rates among players of all skill levels.

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

#448

Post by chrisco255 »

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…

Agreed, an SC3 would be potentially awesome. And I've always thought it would be interesting if they built a StarCraft MMO.

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

#449

Post by deprecative »

huytersd wrote: post #219
AlexandrB wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His employees that made the actual games?

What an asinine, worthless comment. Yes they get some equity too.

The ones that are still there. Let's not pretend like Blizzard, or the games industry broadly, kept their employees around.

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

#450

Post by fphhotchips »

tonyhart7 wrote: post #370
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…

Age of Empire is thriving under microsoft, its not biggest esports out there but the game is pretty stable and receiving seemingly endless content updates I expect starcraft would be the same, maybe cant go back to it former glory but atleast it would be alive especially if make it to gamepass

Not only is AoEII doing really well under Microsoft, it's doing so despite taking a couple of goes to get it right in the modern era. Most other companies would have given up when HD edition got a bit of a middling response.
Post reply on HN