Expecting Microsoft to reinvigorate the various Activision/Blizzard franchises seems like wishful thinking to me. The priority would more like be optimizing the games for the XBox platform. IMO, the rise of the gaming console has been a net negative for deep, complex games on the PC, examples like Crusader Kings notwithstanding. The earlier generation of PC gamers grew up on Avalon Hill strategy games, Strat-o-Matic, D&D, chess, and the like. We were used to complexity and looked for it in games. Recent generations, generally, are less depth focused. Since retiring, I don't have a staff of 20 something programmers to keep me apprised of gaming developments. Most of what I get is from here and other reading. Yes, there are exceptions. Folks here have stated that Paradox tends to make games that verge on obtuse complexity. I'm sure there are some new original games out there, but generally clones and remastered oldies seem to dominate the market and the headlines. Personally, I wouldn't expect much from Microsoft. And sooner or later, companies generally will realize that the cloud is not their friend.
Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
501–510 of 590 posts
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#502I 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 love RTS games, but they're probably never going to achieve the level of success they have in the past. You can still make them, but like arena shooters, movement shooters, and fighting games, they really are from a different era that modern players struggle to come to terms with, and it's hard to justify risking putting a lot of money behind them. It's a shame, because I love all of these genres, but I wouldn't be…
Fighters are arguably bigger than they’ve ever been. SF6 alone has made massive inroads in terms of level of entry to the field.
Hell one need only look at the size of this years EVO.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#503I 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 love RTS games, but they're probably never going to achieve the level of success they have in the past. You can still make them, but like arena shooters, movement shooters, and fighting games, they really are from a different era that modern players struggle to come to terms with, and it's hard to justify risking putting a lot of money behind them. It's a shame, because I love all of these genres, but I wouldn't be…
Giant Grant Games makes a compelling case for why single-player campaign and mod-development experiences are often overlooked but are key for RTS crossover success. And this came out long before the success of BG3. I hold out hope that someone will crack the formula!
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Cyberpunk at 1440p, 75Mbit/s and 120hz/fps feels pretty darn responsive, streaming in from GeForce Now. A local rig will beat it of course, can't cheat lights peed, but if you're close to a datacenter the added lag is negligible, especially if you can get the video stream at 120hz.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I am pretty sensitive to it. It never dropped into low framerates. Sometimes I'd get a quick blast of compression noise but not often. It's not 4K 120FPS, but on a 1080p laptop the quality was fine. Maybe unacceptable when playing on a 70" TV, but a 14" laptop or a 1920x1200 27" screen it's fine. Not as nice as natively rendered, but way nicer than what that $300 laptop could have done on its own! It never dropped in…
Compression artifacts, spotty connections etc. all of those can be issues with remote gaming. What is never an issue is framerate or graphical fidelity (minus video compression artifacts), which makes sense, considering you tend to have a nice machine remotely that plays your game (e.g. a 4080 on GeForce Now).
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN is the only place on the net where I've ever seen people defending the premise of cloud gaming and it's usually (not always) people saying something like "Well I don't game much myself but cloud gaming sounds compelling..." I think this is why tech companies keep trying to implement cloud gaming and it keeps flopping with consumers. Tech industry people who aren't much of gamers themselves think there is some larg…
I do game a good bit, and I like cloud gaming. I find myself away from my gaming desktop often, which makes cloud gaming pretty enticing. And overall it's currently incredibly cheap, a good value.
Same, and I enjoy having maxed out graphics on a large screen while my MacBook stays at ambient temperature, instead of having a noisy space heater howling under my desk.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love RTS games, but they're probably never going to achieve the level of success they have in the past. You can still make them, but like arena shooters, movement shooters, and fighting games, they really are from a different era that modern players struggle to come to terms with, and it's hard to justify risking putting a lot of money behind them. It's a shame, because I love all of these genres, but I wouldn't be…
> love RTS games, but they're probably never going to achieve the level of success they have in the past. You can still make them, but like arena shooters, movement shooters, and fighting games, they really are from a different era that modern players struggle to come to terms with Interesting take. Why do you think that is? They just fallen out of fashion or something else?
Not the GP but I’ll give my take:
The long term value for an RTS is with the multiplayer. The problem is that the games are incredibly demanding to play. It takes a lot of practice and experience to get good enough to get off the “bottom rung” of the online ladder, just to be able to reach close to a 50% win rate.
Many gamers find this too stressful to deal with. They end up quitting the game and moving on to something else. This causes the “bottom rung” to move up in skill, as the weakest players leave. Since winning in these games is zero-sum it gets harder and harder to win the more weak players leave. Eventually only the most dedicated players remain, making it extremely difficult for new players to break onto the scene.
The other aspect to RTS games, the single player campaign, takes a lot of effort for the developers and designers to build. Unfortunately it has very little staying power. People play through the story maybe once with each faction and then either try out multiplayer or move on to a different game.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like MS has a good track record with improving studios they acquire ... Studios under them seem to succeed despite them not because of them.
MSFT as an employer and work environment has industry standard (very good) ESG / DEI stuff, and work life balance is apparently excellent. Contrast with Activision's stewardship of grinding their workers in to bloody dust, and sprinkling sexual abuse on top. Kotic has to go. Before this acquisition became a news story the news was full of employee lawsuits and California itself initiating action against the awful man…
Arguably their best and most succesfull games were produced by hard grinding devs that loved the game they were wotking on and the gamers that played them.
You can feel about ESG/DEI however you wamt, but it has nothing to do with producing great games.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#509I 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…
Ms bought Nokia - out of business
Ms bought Skype - useless as Zoom won the Covid era
MS bought Lynda.com- who?
MS bought LinkedIn- does anyone pay $90 a month to use it?
MS bought Danger - the best tactical keyboard mobile phone. DEAD
MS bought Halo vr system a $3509 pos that never got an update
Ms buys stuff , never making stuff.
Re: Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
> love RTS games, but they're probably never going to achieve the level of success they have in the past. You can still make them, but like arena shooters, movement shooters, and fighting games, they really are from a different era that modern players struggle to come to terms with Interesting take. Why do you think that is? They just fallen out of fashion or something else?
Not the GP but I’ll give my take: The long term value for an RTS is with the multiplayer. The problem is that the games are incredibly demanding to play. It takes a lot of practice and experience to get good enough to get off the “bottom rung” of the online ladder, just to be able to reach close to a 50% win rate. Many gamers find this too stressful to deal with. They end up quitting the game and moving on to somethi…
I think that's fairly accurate, thanks for putting it into words!