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

451–460 of 590 posts

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

#451

Post by noqc »

linkgoron wrote: post #398
noqc wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think I was arguing that Nintendo and sony do not have monopolies, then I believe you misread my argument. This is why I named Microsoft et al.

What I'm trying to say is that games that are differentiators between consoles are common, and this cannot be a basis of blocking such a deal. Indeed, it's no different than applications running only on ARM or x86, or requiring ray-tracing, or a specific Vulkan version support.

I believe if you read my argument, you would see that I explicitly name entering an exclusivity contract as the anticompetitive behavior.

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

#452

Post by edgyquant »

stale2002 wrote: post #409
edgyquant wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Show me where I mentioned the word monopoly. You can’t, because I said anti-competitive.

Ok, and it is not anti-competitive because microsoft isn't anywhere close to being a monopoly. Thats the answer to the question. This answer was already given to you.

Why do you insist on throwing the red herring “monopoly?” You don’t have to be a monopoly to be anti-competitive. Again, Microsoft was not a “monopoly” in the 90s when they were trust busted.

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

#453

Post by Clamchop »

artursapek wrote: post #402
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gaming is about as far from a monopoly as you can get.

Steam basically has a monopoly on PC gaming distro

Steam is overwhelmingly popular with users and publishers alike and so it's enjoying default status with both, but that's the fairest play in capitalism. There's little lock-in (non-transferable licenses and network effects are all I can think of) and I haven't heard of any anticompetitive behavior.

There are many other outlets for distribution, including the plain Jane internet, on all the platforms it's available for. Notably, this includes SteamOS devices like the Steam Deck, something no other console officially offers, as far as I'm aware.

Valve is remarkably fair.

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

#454

Post by f33d5173 »

Clamchop wrote: post #453
artursapek wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam basically has a monopoly on PC gaming distro

Steam is overwhelmingly popular with users and publishers alike and so it's enjoying default status with both, but that's the fairest play in capitalism. There's little lock-in (non-transferable licenses and network effects are all I can think of) and I haven't heard of any anticompetitive behavior. There are many other outlets for distribution, including the plain Jane internet, on all the platforms it's available f…

Valve copies an approach of amazon that many (including, I believe, the USG) consider anticompetitive. Namely, requiring those who list on their store to not list for a lower price on other platforms. This prevents competition on price, an issue because valve charges a 30% fee, which many consumers might like to save on.

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

#455

Post by deelowe »

mrguyorama wrote: post #343
deelowe wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without knowing all the details, I think it's fair to assume this is a fair approach. I'm sure there are all sorts of legal details to work through that make axing him immediately untenable. 3 months seems like a reasonable timeline.

Gotta love this "at will employment" for people doing work, and the "leaders" get to be an open and known sex pest and still manage to go home with huge checks. Does Activision not have HR policies? If I sexually harassed my co-workers, you could bet I wouldn't get a golden parachute.

If you had a contract? Yes.

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

#456

Post by gus_massa »

rollcat wrote: post #408
eric-hu wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a StarCraft 2 fan, I’m actually quite happy with the current game balance. The last two rounds of balance patches from the community were far better for the playability and fun of the game. It was alarming when Blizzard cut funding for GSL and it looked like the Korean scene was practically done, but Afreeca and the community pulled together and kept that prize pool interesting enough for the Korean pros.

I'm glad the age of proxy void rays and queen walks is gone, but there's a lot to be desired from the process. My main grievance is that the community members who form the balance council are under some insane NDA, they're afraid of even discussing what is in the NDA, let alone what they're working on. You end up with a design by committee with minimal community input, which feeds the cycle back into balance whine sh…

The description of the DNA by Harstem in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYxQ9qfftk8 doesn't sound that insane.

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

#457

Post by Clamchop »

f33d5173 wrote: post #454
Clamchop wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam is overwhelmingly popular with users and publishers alike and so it's enjoying default status with both, but that's the fairest play in capitalism. There's little lock-in (non-transferable licenses and network effects are all I can think of) and I haven't heard of any anticompetitive behavior. There are many other outlets for distribution, including the plain Jane internet, on all the platforms it's available f…

Valve copies an approach of amazon that many (including, I believe, the USG) consider anticompetitive. Namely, requiring those who list on their store to not list for a lower price on other platforms. This prevents competition on price, an issue because valve charges a 30% fee, which many consumers might like to save on.

The best source on this that I could find is from ArsTechnica: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fe...

If it can be believed, then they don't appear to have an actual stipulation on this in their contracts, and Valve claims that the dispute isn't over pricing on other platforms but over selling Steam keys at less than the price on the storefront. That's a pretty big difference, if true.

The story also looks at whether publishers pass on savings in platform fees to customers. Naturally, they don't seem to.

If this is what you're referring to, it doesn't seem like a big deal.

I wonder why these distribution channels are converging on 30% of sales. What's with that number in particular?

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

#458

Post by Clamchop »

Clamchop wrote: post #457
f33d5173 wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valve copies an approach of amazon that many (including, I believe, the USG) consider anticompetitive. Namely, requiring those who list on their store to not list for a lower price on other platforms. This prevents competition on price, an issue because valve charges a 30% fee, which many consumers might like to save on.

The best source on this that I could find is from ArsTechnica: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fe... If it can be believed, then they don't appear to have an actual stipulation on this in their contracts, and Valve claims that the dispute isn't over pricing on other platforms but over selling Steam keys at less than the price on the storefront. That's a pretty big difference, if true. The st…

I actually misread. The lawsuit itself is concerned with selling Steam keys, no claim from "sources close to Valve" necessary.

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

#459

Post by imbnwa »

MobileVet wrote: post #441
rollcat wrote: post #369

I keep my fingers crossed for the revival of the StarCraft franchise. I grew up with the game, and it's kinda sad to see the current state of SC2: old bugs, new bugs, community trying to take over the processes but having a very bumpy ride, opaque decision making (de-facto spokespersons/community figures under muddy NDAs), and unfortunately all our 2010 fears (no local/LAN play!) coming true, when server outages are…

RTS is such a great genre. I know everyone loved StarCraft but I enjoyed Warcraft II and 3 more… along with C&C, Red Alert and Age of Empires. Not sure why. Warcraft 3 was a great balance between micro and macro management due to the Hero concept. SC always just felt like a game of numbers… but I am sure I just wasn’t as experienced. Regardless I would love it if the genre stayed alive and I am glad Age is continuall…

Ah, sweet memories of Helm's Deep on WC3 Bnet

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

#460

Post by imbnwa »

WorldMaker wrote: post #437
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying I might see Torrin's Passage 2 now?

I also kind of wish to see that. Al Lowe is beyond retired at this point, but maybe Microsoft money can buy at least outlines of his four (!) proposed sequels.

Can you imagine a Leisure Suit Larry in 2023
Post reply on HN