Microsoft completes $69B deal to buy Activision Blizzard • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by ToucanLoucan » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 5:34 PM UTC

m3kw9 wrote: post #114

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

I really don't get the complaints about Starfield being mid. What did people expect? Skyrim, Fallout 3/4, Starfield are all basically the same things with visual retouches along the way. This is not a slam in the slightest mind you: I'm currently in the midst of my fourth playthrough of Fallout 4. I'm looking forward to picking up Starfield in a year or so once the modders have made it more awesome and Bethesda's fixed the more egregious issues. But apart from that, it's the Bethesda formula: big ass world, a lot of stuff to do in it, none of it particularly mindblowing but all of it generally sitting atop a standard of quality you expect. You go to the places, you shoot the bandits, you collect shit, you sell most of the shit and then get a new point on the map to check out. This is The Loop.

Like I just don't understand what people expected. It's Fallout/Skyrim in space. It has a ton of the exact same mechanics, the exact same weak points, the exact same strong points. I'm sure I'll enjoy it, I'm just not chomping at the bit to have it right now and so will pick up the Game of the Year edition with all DLCs included for like $20 in a year or two.

If you like Bethesda games, you'll probably like Starfield. If you don't, you won't. I personally enjoy them, they're excellent "brain off" entertainment for me and at the same time I understand why some people don't like that, and that's also completely fine but I just don't get why people are flipping their lids in either direction. By all accounts (bearing in mind I haven't played it) it is exactly, 100% to the letter what I expected it to be.

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

#192

Post by pjmlp » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 5:34 PM UTC

manuelabeledo wrote: post #185

pjmlp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As owner of a PS2 Linux, I have, from those indie folks you might have heard of, shared via the PS2Linux SCEE forums. PS2Linux was the successor of Yaroze. Exclusives are great for studios. The bad practice is placing bad behaviours on the contract fine print like not allowing for feature parity after the exclusivity deal runs out, or suffering the risk of a lawsuit.

> The bad practice is placing bad behaviours on the contract fine print like not allowing for feature parity after the exclusivity deal runs out, or suffering the risk of a lawsuit. Are you suggesting that e.g. Square-Enix executives didn't know what they were signing? They signed away exclusives in exchange for money . How is that worse than acquiring big studios with large IP portfolios and lock them to your own pl…

It is a nice business you have here, it would be a shame if something happened to it...

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

#193

Post by Lacerda69 » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 5:34 PM UTC

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.

Blizzard used to me my absolute favourite game company; its so sad how they have fallen off since they got bought by Activision.

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

#194

Post by micromacrofoot » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 5:34 PM UTC

stale2002 wrote: post #179

edgyquant wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is buying up two of the biggest game studios not anti-competitive behavior? The apologism in this comment is hilarious. I hope your getting paid for shilling this hard.

Because the person you responded to just answered that question? It is because Microsoft isn't anywhere close to being a monopoly in games. You could have just read the comment to get the answer to your question.

It's not a monopoly but I think it's fair to express frustration towards the lack of legislation preventing what's clearly anti-competitive behavior. It doesn't seem very helpful for people to continually state what the current laws are as if that makes this better somehow.

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

#195

Post by pjmlp » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

Kranar wrote: post #180

pjmlp wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of true, however Microsoft under Satya really killed the Windows desktop, burned bridges with the Windows developer community, that now has decided to re-focus on Win32, Windows Forms and WPF, ignoring pretty much anything else. Windows is still the best alternative to expensive Macs (on mosty countries for common folks), or the Year of Desktop Linux right around the corner, but not thanks to Satya.

I'd say that Windows and Office are the two areas that Satya didn't really touch or influence in much of any way and mostly let continue on autopilot as he focused on every other area of Microsoft.

Disagree on the Office part, he is clearly behind the push to bring everyone using the Azure version of Office, and the subscription model.

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

#196

Post by JohnMakin » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

ReliantGuyZ wrote: post #184

taf2 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if a lot of the hostility was the result of cost cutting to prepare the company for sale?

By all accounts the sale agreement came together rapidly in the light of dark revelations about the state of Blizzard's work culture. I think the company has just been authentically bad without that pressure

How the AVB board did not immediately fire Kotick when it came out that he not only knew about the horrific culture of sexual harassment and hazing in his workplace, but that he withheld it from them, is absolutely baffling to me. Maybe that's what spurred this on.

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

#197

Post by tester756 » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

Thaxll wrote: post #162

So Basically only EA and Ubisoft remains as big publisher.

CD Projekt Red?

2 of the biggest games ever belongs to them (Witcher and Cyberpunk)

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

#198

Post by AlexandrB » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

greenthrow wrote: post #183

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.

Looking forward to revisiting this quote in 5 years.

One thing you learn as you get older is that things can always get worse.

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

#199

Post by Capricorn2481 » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #153

nitwit005 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't going to see lower prices, no matter who acquires who. Video game prices are effectively set industry wide, similar to music and movies. They effectively set the price collectively, which is why you see articles mention things like: > Xbox is preparing to join other major games publishers in raising the prices of its major new first-party titles from $60 to $70. https://www.ign.com/articles/microsoft-ra…

The Series S console came out at $299. GamePass is $10.99/mo. If that's not lowering prices, then I don't know what is.

We're talking about game prices, which are indeed industry set (worked in the industry).

The Xbox Series S has cheaper hardware, that's why it's cheaper. You might as well say video games are getting less expensive because the 3DS isn't $500.

While GamePass is great value, it's just temporary to keep everybody on Microsoft store. You can't mod games, you can't open your game files even, and your progress in live service games will not be transferred to other platforms even if you're on PC still.

It's hard not to acknowledge the fact that Microsoft is getting perfectly positioned to clamp everyone down into their ecosystem harder than ever, and there's nothing we could do about it. They have Github, they have a close partnership with ChatGPT, they have a crazy amount of game studios and IPs.

I don't think the attitude of "let's let them get as big as possible and hope they don't abuse that power" is healthy.

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

#200

Post by duped » Fri, Oct 13, 2023, 5:39 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #140

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.

Roughly 82% of their revenue comes from Call of Duty, Warcraft, and Candy Crush. I'm not sure what the actual breakdown is from there, but they're not exactly diversified.

https://www.axios.com/2022/03/03/embattled-activision-facing...