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

131–140 of 590 posts

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

#131

Post by fifticon »

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…

never mind the downvotes, I agree with you. My kid plays minecraft, and the amount of microsoft bullshit we have to put up with to be allowed to play the game we already bought before the acquisition boggles the mind. I have a suspicion, that before 2025, we won't be allowed in the game without an ms authenticator app on my mobile - to be allowed to play a kids game we already paid for. The rights of the end users are very low on the list.

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

#132

Post by havblue »

So, granted, one big company is buying another big company and consolidating a decent chunk of the market for multiplayer fps games. Fewer platforms means fewer people play a certain kind of game with the benefit of less development for lower quality ports.

Other than the fact that AAA companies can cut costs from this I'm not so sure about what people are negative on this one. So if you don't want to buy a PC or get an Xbox, but you really like CoD, you might be out of luck eventually. I would think that what we're really concerned about is whether indie studios can get off the ground and create new experiences.

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

#133

Post by ascagnel_ »

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.

Just because they own all the pieces (the Fallout franchise, the engine Bethesda created for F:NV, Obsidian Entertainment) doesn't mean there's a workable concept for the game.

Obsidian put out two games in the past two-ish years: Grounded (a co-op survival shooter) and Pentiment (a point-and-click murder mystery set in the middle ages). Both were well-received. In addition, Obsidian has also announced The Outer Worlds 2, a sequel to a game that (fairly or unfairly) was compared to F:NV.

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

#134

Post by Night_Thastus »

malfist wrote: post #124
Night_Thastus wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very unlikely. Again, MS just wants the profits. If a studio is doing well, they don't want to touch it. They want a steady revenue stream. They'll only step in if the studio is floundering and their couple releases have been flops. Then they'll offer direction, and shut them down if they can't fix it. That's what we've seen from MS so far, and it makes the most sense from their perspective.

> MS just wants the profits. Are you sure about that? MS required Starfield to be exclusive after purchasing Bethesda

Well of course. They're spending a lot of money, why wouldn't they make the titles of anything they acquire be Xbox/Windows exclusive? That increases their profits. More people buy Xboxes, more people are on their platform, etc.

They have some contractual obligations that prevent them from doing it for everything, but they'll do it for anything they can.

That's just business sense.

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

#135

Post by opportune »

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 haven’t owned Bethesda for very long so I think it’s fair that they haven’t released a F:NV successor yet. I do suspect that Microsoft may have been behind Starfield releasing in its half-baked, dumbed down state though a la “We need it on game pass by X, make it happen!”

Regarding at least the Blizzard side of the acquisition, I feel like Microsoft ownership may end up being a good thing for their underused IP. Microsoft has strong incentives to release RTS (StarCraft, Warcraft) games to bolster PC usage for gaming and maybe bring more attention to the Windows Store (IMO forcing minecraft onto the Store was a blunder as the upgrade experience was fucking terrible) if they choose to use it.

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

#136

Post by WillPostForFood »

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've owned Bethesda for a couple years, what are you expecting? They put out Starfield, New elder scrolls is in pre-production, and have said a new Fallout is next.

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

#137

Post by zuminator »

xinayder wrote: post #92
echelon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't know how the authorities were convinced that they won't make ActiBlizz games exclusive. When they acquired Bethesda, a similar concern was brought up. Fast-forward to today, new Bethesda games aren't releasing on Sony consoles. It started with Starfield. TES6 won't release on PS either.

There are a ton of Nintendo and Sony exclusives, so to compete on an equal footing eventually Xbox will need some good exclusives as well. If all their premium AAA titles are released on PlayStation, and PlayStation has a ton of premium titles that don't get released on Xbox, why would anyone bother buying an Xbox? You don't have to have any great love for Microsoft to acknowledge that their departure from the console market would restrict consumer choice and hinder console development.

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

#138

Post by hipadev23 »

delecti wrote: post #121
hipadev23 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft produces video games. They acquired another company that produces video games. How is this antitrust?

The merger of two large entities in the same market is a pretty clear example of something that should raise antitrust concerns.

I disagree because Microsoft doesn't hold some unique barrier to entry into video game production the way they do an operating system.

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

#139

Post by throwaway5959 »

delecti wrote: post #121
hipadev23 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft produces video games. They acquired another company that produces video games. How is this antitrust?

The merger of two large entities in the same market is a pretty clear example of something that should raise antitrust concerns.

Why? Two large corporations merging isn’t in itself antitrust. In some cases an industry is in decline and it makes a lot of sense for large companies to merge otherwise both might go out of business (clearly not what’s going on here, but just an example).

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

#140

Post by Retric »

havblue wrote: post #132

So, granted, one big company is buying another big company and consolidating a decent chunk of the market for multiplayer fps games. Fewer platforms means fewer people play a certain kind of game with the benefit of less development for lower quality ports. Other than the fact that AAA companies can cut costs from this I'm not so sure about what people are negative on this one. So if you don't want to buy a PC or get…

Activision is a lot bigger than CoD with Warcraft, Diablo, StarCraft, etc each have huge followings. So not only does it impact players of a huge chunk of game series, plus any potential future series by Activision but also the viability of alternative platforms.

Thus, even pure indy gamers are being harmed here. Worse it’s yet another sign that US regulators have no intentions of limiting monopolistic behavior.

Post reply on HN