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

461–470 of 590 posts

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

#461

Post by stale2002 »

edgyquant wrote: post #452
stale2002 wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you insist on throwing the red herring “monopoly?” You don’t have to be a monopoly to be anti-competitive. Again, Microsoft was not a “monopoly” in the 90s when they were trust busted.

> Why do you insist on throwing the red herring “monopoly?”

It is not a red herring.

Instead, it is the most important factor for determining if something is illegally anticompetitive.

* if a company does not have a large enough percentage of the market, then many actions become completely legal* > Again, Microsoft was not a “monopoly” in the 90s

It had over 70% of the relevant market.

According to court precedent ,that is absolutely within the definition of having monopoly power.

And Microsoft has no where close to that amount of monopoly power for anti trust laws to apply.

> You don’t have to be a monopoly to be anti-competitive.

You quite literally do have to have a large enough percentage of the market for something to be anti competitive.

If you do not have a large percentage of the market, then whole swaths of things are not illegal, that would be illegal if a large market share firm did the same action.

Is it literally a factor that determines if anti trust law applies.

This isn't controversial.

Feel free to look up all the information on the FTC website, if you actually care.

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

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

#462

Post by [deleted] »

dimator wrote: post #422
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…

i don't think OP meant "don't compete" as in "they're not in the race". i think OP meant that Nintendo just plays their own, slow, long game, focusing on what they want to focus on.

[deleted]

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

#463

Post by mr_toad »

Clamchop wrote: post #453
artursapek wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam basically has a monopoly on PC gaming distro

Steam is overwhelmingly popular with users and publishers alike and so it's enjoying default status with both, but that's the fairest play in capitalism. There's little lock-in (non-transferable licenses and network effects are all I can think of) and I haven't heard of any anticompetitive behavior. There are many other outlets for distribution, including the plain Jane internet, on all the platforms it's available f…

You can’t really exhibit anti-competitive behaviour if you don’t have any competition to speak of.

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

#465

Post by Clamchop »

mr_toad wrote: post #463
Clamchop wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam is overwhelmingly popular with users and publishers alike and so it's enjoying default status with both, but that's the fairest play in capitalism. There's little lock-in (non-transferable licenses and network effects are all I can think of) and I haven't heard of any anticompetitive behavior. There are many other outlets for distribution, including the plain Jane internet, on all the platforms it's available f…

You can’t really exhibit anti-competitive behaviour if you don’t have any competition to speak of.

But you can, it's what distinguishes an illegal monopoly from a legal one.

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

#466

Post by giancarlostoro »

mepian wrote: post #342
giancarlostoro wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks like they still do: https://www.ea.com/ea-play I think they rebranded Origin or whatever it was called, didn't even realize.

EA Play is not cloud gaming, it's a download subscription service.

I guess Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass is the same thing then.

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

#467

Post by asynchronous »

WorldMaker wrote: post #362
asynchronous wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See having completed Outer Worlds and also comparing it to Starfield, I’ve enjoyed both but Starfield feels much bigger while Outer Worlds feels smaller but deeper. The sheer scale of planets on Starfield runs pretty well. I’d love to have those two teams combined again for a great game.

Arguably the teams aren't combined since they have such disparate priorities/preferences. Obsidian wants to go deep and Bethesda wants to go wide and shallow, those are the kinds of games they both prefer to build. (Or at least that's how they seem from outside perspectives.) It certainly would be incredible to see some games try for more interesting compromises of "both", but it's also incredibly hard to project man…

Really interesting concept. Maybe we’ll begin to see more of that once something like Unreal Engine 5 dominates the market.

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

#468

Post by chii »

Isthatablackgsd wrote: post #365
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.

It wasn't fair to blame it on FTC and SEC. The blame is on the US Congress, they have the power to create and enact laws. They also can create law to limits the power of the federal agencies if they want to. They had a lot of opportunities to do something for us and they barely did anything except for corporations. Federal agencies only can do much within the scope of their power and laws.

And yet, how come congress keeps getting the same (or same type) of persons elected?

So in the end, the electorate is not choosing a representative that represents them. Or, these niche concerns are not the concerns of the majority of the electorate.

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

#469

Post by c0pium »

jonhohle wrote: post #393
anon84873628 wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love SC2 and think it is one of the best esport games. However it is considered a "classic game" for Blizzard and they have a skeleton crew maintaining it. Funding for professional events has been decreasing consistently and especially reduced in 2023. There was a recent controversial balance patch that highlighted problems with community interaction and communication -- and no one knows how soon until a new patch…

I’m not sure what Blizzard’s strategy with esports is (or now Microsoft’s), but they basically imploded the official Overwatch league by being extremely ambiguous about whether or not it would continue, buying out franchise contracts to leave the league, and leaving Twitch for YouTube.

Microsoft definitely takes the Halo esports scene seriously, so running an esport well is definitely in their skillset. Hopefully those people are paying attention and want to get promoted.

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

#470

Post by EstesPark »

MobileVet wrote: post #441
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 continuall…

Wow, I completely forgot about Red Alert. That game was a blast!
Post reply on HN