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

111–120 of 590 posts

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

#111

Post by esotericimpl »

xinayder wrote: post #71

Bobby Kotick will remain as CEO until the end of 2023 and get a huge check for this purchase. He's getting rewarded for building a toxic, fratboy workspace, sexually and psycologically harassing women. I wonder if Microsoft can be held accountable for allowing a sex predator like him to continue working.

I think hes getting rewarded for growing the company by 95x over the past 20 years.

As a shareholder since 1999 my cost basis for my shares in ATVI is about $1.11 - Exiting at 95.00.

Pretty good return TBH.

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

#112

Post by delecti »

mcpackieh wrote: post #78
mrweasel wrote: post #70

And what is Microsoft going to do with this purchase? Seriously, Microsoft is buy all these game studios and fail to utilize them probably. They own all the IP required to do a followup to Fallout New Vegas and NOTHING.

They'll start making nostalgia bait cash grabs soon enough when they think gamers are ripe for it.

That they don't already think gamers are ripe for it shows how bad they are at making games people want to buy/play.

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

#113

Post by crazygringo »

echelon wrote: post #85
xinayder wrote: post #71

Bobby Kotick will remain as CEO until the end of 2023 and get a huge check for this purchase. He's getting rewarded for building a toxic, fratboy workspace, sexually and psycologically harassing women. I wonder if Microsoft can be held accountable for allowing a sex predator like him to continue working.

Focusing on one asshole getting undeserved rewards is one thing, but it distracts from the real story. What hurts way more at scale is the increasing monopolistic power of Microsoft Games. That should be the primary focus of everyone's attention. This weakens Sony, Nintendo, Steam, Epic. The consumer. Everyone but Microsoft. Microsoft can give away "experiences" under-cost and sink a lot of human attention into it. T…

> increasing monopolistic power of Microsoft Games

Microsoft has never been #1 in gaming. It's always been playing catch-up.

There's nothing even remotely close to "monopolistic". That doesn't make any sense at all. You literally can't be a monopoly if you're not #1.

This is Microsoft simply trying to complete better against Sony. Which is a good thing. It benefits the consumer as stronger, more equal competition leads to lower prices for consumers.

Letting Sony remain in the lead forever is what would be bad for consumers in the long term.

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

#114

Post by m3kw9 »

MS has been making some really mediocre games in the past 5 years. What have they made that was good or won awards/Acclaim? I think they buy studios and the execs then put their finger prints all over it and f up the games. Just look at Starfield, hyped af but mid af

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

#115

Post by amelius »

logicchains wrote: post #97
AirMax98 wrote: post #72

God damn man. How is this not an antitrust violation? The only answer is that we live in truly corrupt times. What is our answer to this?

Microsoft doesn't have anything close to a monopoly on games. In terms of sales and reviewer scores, most of the top games weren't produced by Activision or other Microsoft studios. The only recent release I'm aware of was Starfield, and that was panned for failing to meet expectations, achieving under 88 on Metacritic.

> Microsoft doesn't have anything close to a monopoly on games.

The whole monopoly argument doesn't work, we'll just end up with duopolies, or perhaps triopolies. See iOS vs Android.

What we need is an adjustment of the rules, where e.g. the top 10 companies instead of the top 1 company are treated as a monopoly from an antitrust point of view.

This will give consumers more to choose from.

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

#116

Post by esotericimpl »

e63f67dd-065b wrote: post #93
xinayder wrote: post #71

Bobby Kotick will remain as CEO until the end of 2023 and get a huge check for this purchase. He's getting rewarded for building a toxic, fratboy workspace, sexually and psycologically harassing women. I wonder if Microsoft can be held accountable for allowing a sex predator like him to continue working.

He's being rewarded for growing net income roughly a hundred fold between 2010 and now. I think it's fair that he gets a huge chunk of the value he's created for investors.

[dead]

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

#117

Post by Night_Thastus »

edgyquant wrote: post #103
Night_Thastus wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft will likely just let them keep operating as they do now, providing money and reaping any profits. They'll only step in directly if the studios are having problems they can't handle themselves, or performing very poorly. They want the profit, not as much to direct everything on a micro-level. EDIT: They will of course make more titles Windows/XBox exclusive too, which makes sense considering the investment.

No they want to buy a monopoly since they couldn’t earn one.

How is that incompatible with what I said?

Most of all, MS wants a steady revenue stream. Buying lots of studios helps even out any less profitable titles that come out.

Now, they will likely make more titles Xbox/windows exclusive. That's expected.

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

#118

Post by MisterBastahrd »

echelon wrote: post #85
xinayder wrote: post #71

Bobby Kotick will remain as CEO until the end of 2023 and get a huge check for this purchase. He's getting rewarded for building a toxic, fratboy workspace, sexually and psycologically harassing women. I wonder if Microsoft can be held accountable for allowing a sex predator like him to continue working.

Focusing on one asshole getting undeserved rewards is one thing, but it distracts from the real story. What hurts way more at scale is the increasing monopolistic power of Microsoft Games. That should be the primary focus of everyone's attention. This weakens Sony, Nintendo, Steam, Epic. The consumer. Everyone but Microsoft. Microsoft can give away "experiences" under-cost and sink a lot of human attention into it. T…

Sony has behaved in an identical manner for years.

Nintendo refuses to do anything that makes them NOT a hardware company, and so they will continue to languish on last-generation hardware.

Steam is doing just fine. Microsoft sells games on Steam because it made business sense for them to do so.

Epic has good first party titles but they give away two games a week and it has never moved the needle for me because (a) Steam games are the same price, and (b) I've already got most of my games on Steam, so why would I move?

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

#119

Post by tonmoy »

JohnMakin wrote: post #107

Normally I'm against such huge mergers - but Activision Blizzard is one of the most hostile companies against their users and employees I have ever seen. I can't imagine this being a bad thing for game fans.

MS could decide to prevent resale of next new game to be release on the PS like they did with Starfield. However, they are still significantly better than Sony, so can’t complain too much. This acquisition is probably a good thing for the game developers tho

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

#120

Post by nine_k »

thfuran wrote: post #66
nine_k wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if a company goes out of business, and fewer remain? Should it be even allowed to close? :) Mergers are different because they create fewer giants in the place where more smaller companies used to be. In extreme cases, it may have seriously bad consequences for broader public, and this is a reason to prevent a merger, or even split a monopoly. But this should be a rather extraordinary event.

Why isn't a company with a revenue roughly the same as the country of Belgium merging with a competitor a rather extraordinary event?

It is, it happens infrequently, and always is subject to scrutiny.

(Belgium, with all due respect, is not very large.)

Post reply on HN