Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 490 posts

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#371

Post by lelanthran »

cman1444 wrote: post #354
NovaDudely wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> argues that this deal actually helps consumers I'm listening... > by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming Ewww... no thanks!

It's not the Boogeyman you think it is. You used to have to buy a game for $60 and if you didn't like it? Well too bad, that's $60 down the drain. Now you can just move on to the next one. I get that for enthusiasts owning a physical game may be more desirable, but for the majority of gamers (casual gamers) a subscription based service is a better option.

> It's not the Boogeyman you think it is. You used to have to buy a game for $60 and if you didn't like it? Well too bad, that's $60 down the drain. Now you can just move on to the next one. I get that for enthusiasts owning a physical game may be more desirable, but for the majority of gamers (casual gamers) a subscription based service is a better option.

Moving from an ownership model to a rental model is very anti-consumer.

So, sure, some people prefer to rent their couch. That's fine. You're effectively arguing that couch ownership should be forbidden.

You are going to have to provide a more compelling argument that "Well, I play every game only once, for 90m, before moving on to the next, so we should enforce my preference onto everybody!"

The majority of gamers don't play more than a handful of games in a year. There's just no time. You find a game you're into, your pour most of your hours into that game.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#373

Post by MikusR »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #59
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTC: Wait what?! We're supposed to be concerned about the rabble first?

Europe considers both direct harm to consumers and harm to competitors because without significant competition, the big players inevitably slide into exploiting customers and their vendors.

That explains why Europe approved the merger.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#374

Post by goosedragons »

cman1444 wrote: post #354
NovaDudely wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> argues that this deal actually helps consumers I'm listening... > by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming Ewww... no thanks!

It's not the Boogeyman you think it is. You used to have to buy a game for $60 and if you didn't like it? Well too bad, that's $60 down the drain. Now you can just move on to the next one. I get that for enthusiasts owning a physical game may be more desirable, but for the majority of gamers (casual gamers) a subscription based service is a better option.

Actually you could take that $60 game and sell it for another. And if you didn't buy an absolute stinker you could often get a pretty good amount of cash/credit back if you traded it shortly after release. We also used to have these places where for about $6 you could rent a game for a few days and decide if you want it to own. They often stocked a lot of the hot new release and they didn't need to enter special deals with the publisher for it to be available. If we had better rights over the stuff we buy digutally we could have stuff like this again.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#375

Post by autoexec »

cman1444 wrote: post #354
NovaDudely wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> argues that this deal actually helps consumers I'm listening... > by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming Ewww... no thanks!

It's not the Boogeyman you think it is. You used to have to buy a game for $60 and if you didn't like it? Well too bad, that's $60 down the drain. Now you can just move on to the next one. I get that for enthusiasts owning a physical game may be more desirable, but for the majority of gamers (casual gamers) a subscription based service is a better option.

> I get that for enthusiasts owning a physical game may be more desirable

It is more desirable. So is not having to be connected to the internet to play your games. So is not paying for something that can be taken from you at any time for any reason without reimbursement. So is having a copy of your game that can't be edited or censored at any time (including silently) and which can always be played in its original form.

Also desirable is the ability to modify or patch the games you paid for however you like, even in ways publishers wouldn't approve of. So is the ability to let a friend borrow the game. So is the ability to resell your games. So is the ability to pass them down to your kids or grand kids.

When all you have is "gaming as a service" you'll be giving up a hell of a lot more than a disk or a box on your shelf. Companies love cloud/subscription based gaming because it gives them far more control, gives them new ways to collect data on users and new ways to push ads at them, and it allows them to force gamers to pay for their games over and over again instead of it being just a one time purchase.

I don't care how "casual" a gamer someone is, they will never be better off giving up so much in exchange for so little, especially since what little they do get is all subject to change at any time, just like the ongoing costs will be.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#376

Post by autoexec »

bbarn wrote: post #346
jonhohle wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn’t about trying out games, it’s about having access to those games in 5, 10, 20 years or later. There is a growing list of digital only titles that are no longer available to new players and may be unavailable to people who “bought” them. I have a bricked Wii with digital games that are tied to the physical console, not any account. There is no way to recover them. Steam has done a remarkable job staying…

The majority of new games can't work offline, and having a physical disc is now so rare that companies are selling game boxes and deluxe editions that contain no software at all - not even a download code, since you need to buy it with an account anyway.

> The majority of new games can't work offline

source?

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#377

Post by madeofpalk »

collinc777 wrote: post #204
madeofpalk wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Microsoft’s reason for why they feel they need this is exactly the reason why this is bad. Shouldn’t Microsoft build a compelling cloud gaming service that both customers want to pay for, and publishers want to publish on? Microsoft should build good gaming hardware and services, and people buy them based on the merits of those products rather than acquiring companies just to prop up their efforts and otherwi…

Microsoft is getting their butts kicked on exclusives from Sony. Nothing wrong with them buying their way to better exclusives

I think we shouldn't have exlcusives! I think they're inherently anti-consumer, and eventually anti-developer also!

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#378

Post by goosedragons »

jonhohle wrote: post #341
topkai22 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love Xbox game pass streaming, for many of the reasons I like streaming music, tv, and movies. It’s cheap to try things- I can fire up a new game without waiting to download 40+ GB. If the play engages me I’ll keep playing, if not I’ll move on. I’m not a very good with high speed games anyways, so the increased latency isn’t generally noticeable in the games I play.

The issue isn’t about trying out games, it’s about having access to those games in 5, 10, 20 years or later. There is a growing list of digital only titles that are no longer available to new players and may be unavailable to people who “bought” them. I have a bricked Wii with digital games that are tied to the physical console, not any account. There is no way to recover them. Steam has done a remarkable job staying…

Microsoft has done a decent job. Digital purchases made on 360 that are compatible with Xbox One/Series consoles have transferred over and you often get the PC and Xbox version of a title for buying a game in the Windows Store (and get the PC version if it is available in the Windows Store if you buy on Xbox).

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#379

Post by goosedragons »

arcanemachiner wrote: post #367
bbarn wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of new games can't work offline, and having a physical disc is now so rare that companies are selling game boxes and deluxe editions that contain no software at all - not even a download code, since you need to buy it with an account anyway.

What exactly are they selling if there's no game inside?

A lot of collector's editions aren't including the game anymore. It's just knickknacks. Statue, stickers, steel book to put the disc if you bought that version. That kind of thing.

The standard physical editions still include a disc or cartridge and occasionally just a code.

Re: Microsoft wins FTC fight to buy Activision Blizzard

#380

Post by CivBase »

lokar wrote: post #303
CivBase wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What monkey are you referring to here? Doesn't look like the FTC has even a remote chance of successfully appealing this case.

You mean appealing the injunction? The case has not been decided has it?

Yes, sorry.
Post reply on HN