Microsoft to Acquire Activision Blizzard • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft to Acquire Activision Blizzard

#321

Post by loceng » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

parkingrift wrote: post #196

No acquisition of this size should ever be allowed. This is way too much consolidation. Microsoft is buying their way to becoming the #2 or #3 gaming company in the world. They should have to innovate and compete their way to the #2 or #3 gaming company in the world. Who is going to be able to compete with Xbox Game Pass?

One counterweight mechanism that might work really well is a higher % tax for these massive organizations - of which then ideally direct that funding to support and fund creativity/competitors, etc. Whether that accounts for and counters all the potential pitfalls of companies with such gravity and power, I don't know?

Re: Microsoft to Acquire Activision Blizzard

#322

Post by crecker » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

Lol look at the URL funny :) "__trashed"

Re: Microsoft to Acquire Activision Blizzard

#323

Post by JaimeThompson » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

baal80spam wrote: post #11

1_player wrote: post #2

The most important question I have is: will they replace Bobby Kotick? EDIT: "Bobby Kotick will continue to serve as CEO of Activision Blizzard. [...] he and his team will maintain their focus on driving efforts to further strengthen the company’s culture." Shame on you, Microsoft.

Activision's value skyrocketed under Kotick, not sure why they would want to replace him.

Short term it was increased but how much long term damage was done? Warcraft III Reforged has yet to receive most of the promised features or even a single patch.

Re: Microsoft to Acquire Activision Blizzard

#324

Post by aaronsimpson » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

megumax wrote: post #147

I don't really understand these acquisitions made by Microsoft, first Mojang, then Bethesda and now Activision. Is Microsoft trying to revive these companies or it's just trying to leech of the market? At this moment, Activision is living out of in-game purchases, not making good games. Bethesda was almost dead when they bought it. >Legendary games, immersive interactive entertainment and publishing expertise acceler…

Mojang owned Minecraft, one of the best-selling video games of all time, even when it was in a "downtrend" because of Fortnite.

Microsoft didn't just acquire Bethesda. They acquired the entirety of ZeniMax, so Elder Scrolls Online, Fallout Shelter, Doom, Wolfenstein, Prey, Dishonored. Clearly not dead by any stretch of the imagination.

Activision Blizzard, despite the sexual harassment allegations, has Overwatch, World of Warcraft (still a profitable title), Diablo 4 and Overwatch 2 launching Soon™. From a business standpoint, I'd say they've made the acquisitions of a lifetime.

Re: Microsoft to Acquire Activision Blizzard

#325

Post by parkingrift » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 2:55 PM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #297

parkingrift wrote: post #196

No acquisition of this size should ever be allowed. This is way too much consolidation. Microsoft is buying their way to becoming the #2 or #3 gaming company in the world. They should have to innovate and compete their way to the #2 or #3 gaming company in the world. Who is going to be able to compete with Xbox Game Pass?

Counterpoint: It's gaming. It is a space with a low barrier to (indie) entry and it is not part of some critical infrastructure. Maybe it is lamentable, but I am not sure antitrust would be my way to go for this.

It will be tough to sell $60 games when you can get the entire library of Microsoft games, plus their partner networks, for $10/month.

Not to mention the potential platform abuses whereby MS can now gate their property behind Windows and Xbox.

And I’m not even that creative. Surely MS will get a return on their $70,000,000,000 investment whether it’s better for the gaming economy and consumers, or not.

Re: Microsoft to Acquire Activision Blizzard

#326

Post by etempleton » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 2:56 PM UTC

I think Game Pass is a great service at a great price and I think Microsoft's overall direction for gaming has been really positive and forward looking; however, I do worry about the consolidation of gaming. Activision Blizzard was fairly user hostile in their business practices, so I don't think this will be a net loss for consumers.

What I am starting to worry about is Microsoft squeezing Sony out of gaming entirely. For a lot of casual gamers Call of Duty was the game or one of a few games they play and have played for years. A lot of those casual gamers own a Playstation. While Microsoft hasn't announced if Call of Duty will be exclusive or not, making the game PC/XBOX exclusive would be doctrine. The only example I can think of where they don't do that is Minecraft, so it is possible.

Re: Microsoft to Acquire Activision Blizzard

#327

Post by marcus_holmes » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 2:56 PM UTC

Still not going to buy anything from the dumpster fire that used to be Blizzard

Re: Microsoft to Acquire Activision Blizzard

#328

Post by psyc » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 2:56 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #216

Does this mean that Blizzard engineers get a FAANG salary now?

No, they'll have to settle for Microsoft pay. Still probably a moderate bump for them, though.

Re: Microsoft to Acquire Activision Blizzard

#329

Post by taubek » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 2:56 PM UTC

megumax wrote: post #147

I don't really understand these acquisitions made by Microsoft, first Mojang, then Bethesda and now Activision. Is Microsoft trying to revive these companies or it's just trying to leech of the market? At this moment, Activision is living out of in-game purchases, not making good games. Bethesda was almost dead when they bought it. >Legendary games, immersive interactive entertainment and publishing expertise acceler…

If they don't buy it, someone else will. This way they probably get a bunch of games in their catalogue, they get brand names, people, players, etc. I would say that they don't want to be left out and over run by other players.

Re: Microsoft to Acquire Activision Blizzard

#330

Post by lvass » Tue, Jan 18, 2022, 2:56 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #273

echelon wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] if Satya and the Board spin off gaming into an independent company at some point. I certainly think this should happen. The trillion dollar giants should not span multiple industries. They have absurd monopoly power and can make growing your own niche impossible. Why does a cloud computing / operating system vendor / hardware manufacturer / business software / developer tooling company also own the third bigg…

400 - 1400 (Feudal economics) 1850 - 1920 (Railroad + oil/steel trusts) 1880 - 1982 (ATT) 1950 - 1975 (IBM) 1985 - 2000 (Intel/Microsoft) 2008 - current (Google/Apple/Amazon) 2014 - current (Meta) It's the nature of technology to produce consolidation, before the next breakthrough occurs and incumbents are typically swept away. On the plus side, the length of dominant periods seems to be decreasing. And realistically…

Feudalism is an entirely different beast and either didn't exist or had minor global presence throughout the whole period you listed. Even listing the ancient Achaemenid Empire for example would make more sense in this context.