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

491–500 of 590 posts

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

#491

Post by tacocataco »

chii wrote: post #468
Isthatablackgsd wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't fair to blame it on FTC and SEC. The blame is on the US Congress, they have the power to create and enact laws. They also can create law to limits the power of the federal agencies if they want to. They had a lot of opportunities to do something for us and they barely did anything except for corporations. Federal agencies only can do much within the scope of their power and laws.

And yet, how come congress keeps getting the same (or same type) of persons elected? So in the end, the electorate is not choosing a representative that represents them. Or, these niche concerns are not the concerns of the majority of the electorate.

First Past The Post voting.

With something like Ranked choice voting, competition would be introduced into the electoral system. Making 3rd parties viable will also give a larger percentage of the electorate representation in government. Plus more people will be engaged in the political process.

CGP Grey has a short and informative video on the topic, as well as videos on alternative electoral systems we could use. All his videos on other topics are top notch if you got some free time, check him out.

How we vote is controlled by the states, so we don't need to beg the two mainstream political parties to get this done.

I believe a couple states already have done away with FPTP voting, so it's possible. Alaska and Maine IIRC.

Oregon recently is looking into doing it as well but I am not sure if they passed it yet.

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

#492

Post by NekkoDroid »

AlexandrB wrote: post #61
jnovek wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to say this. Activision has been such a poor steward of Blizzard's properties that I find them largely unplayable. It may be unlikely that Microsoft will course correct away from data-drive, engagement-focus mtx games, but I know Activision never will.

Rumor is that Bobby is stepping down once the acquisition closes, which is a good start.

He is gone on the 01.01.2024, until then he remains CEO

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

#493

Post by sumedh »

wilg wrote: post #304
w0m wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, assuming there's actually a cloud gaming market. A fact that's still up for debate I think.

I have gigabit fiber and somehow Xbox Cloud Gaming looks like shit. I don’t know how anyone uses it! (On Ethernet, in LA)

Maybe your ISP is slowing down the packets.

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

#494

Post by endorphine »

seabird wrote: post #483
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…

I love RTS games, but they're probably never going to achieve the level of success they have in the past. You can still make them, but like arena shooters, movement shooters, and fighting games, they really are from a different era that modern players struggle to come to terms with, and it's hard to justify risking putting a lot of money behind them. It's a shame, because I love all of these genres, but I wouldn't be…

> love RTS games, but they're probably never going to achieve the level of success they have in the past. You can still make them, but like arena shooters, movement shooters, and fighting games, they really are from a different era that modern players struggle to come to terms with

Interesting take. Why do you think that is? They just fallen out of fashion or something else?

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

#495

Post by rollcat »

chrisco255 wrote: post #447
rollcat wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brood War is incredibly tough for newcomers. Skill-wise, the mid-F rank (barely above the rock bottom) is the equivalent of SC2's low diamond (roughly middle of the playerbase) - people are either this good, or drop out. If you're looking for a more fair match, and don't mind SC2 being a very different game, you should give it a try. If you can max out on literally anything before 15:00 and a-move your opponent, you…

SC2's matching engine and ladder is designed to generate ~50% win rates among players of all skill levels.

Same for BW, same for chess, that's basically how ELO/MMR works. The very bottom (and the very top) of the ladder of course have a skew, there are people who are so bad (or so good) that the ladder can't find anyone worse (better) than them and get less than (or more than) 50% winrate. It's just that the skill floor for BW is so damn high.

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

#496

Post by vel0city »

anakaine wrote: post #474
mehlmao wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised, I had pretty much the opposite experience. I used Xbox Cloud Gaming to play through Halo 5 (the only game in the series to not have a PC port) in four sessions over a few months, wrapping up last weekend. I'm on a high spec desktop playing with an Xbox controller connected by USB. The desktop is on Ethernet, 200 Mbps down / 30 Mbps up. In my experience, the game frequently failed to start. Most often I…

The technology they chose to power the experience, Rainway, seems to have needed a huge amount of work to get good enough for commercial adoption. There have been large differences between app vs browser vs xbox streaming, too.

I wonder if this is a part of the quality difference. I've only used the app version, never the web.

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

#497

Post by vel0city »

mcpackieh wrote: post #434
sandworm101 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> so far unfinished cloud gaming app. As a gamer, few things would turn me away from a potential purchase more than the phrase "cloud gaming app". It sounds like DRM-infected bloatware ready to kick me from a server the moment my connection even hiccups. Only "cloud gaming app, now by Microsoft " could be worse.

HN is the only place on the net where I've ever seen people defending the premise of cloud gaming and it's usually (not always) people saying something like "Well I don't game much myself but cloud gaming sounds compelling..." I think this is why tech companies keep trying to implement cloud gaming and it keeps flopping with consumers. Tech industry people who aren't much of gamers themselves think there is some larg…

I do game a good bit, and I like cloud gaming. I find myself away from my gaming desktop often, which makes cloud gaming pretty enticing. And overall it's currently incredibly cheap, a good value.

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

#498

Post by vel0city »

blibble wrote: post #346
kipchak wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's still a market for what you're describing, but in terms of players and revenue it seems like competitive multiplayer titles that don't require particularly beefy hardware and where network latency is especially important have become what's most popular and profitable. For example looking at September's games by MAUs[1], #6, #10 and #17 seem like good fits for cloud gaming, but the rest seem like a bad…

yes, esports titles will run on a potato pc there's no need to rent a PC 50ms-100ms away for esports when a bottom of the range PC will happily run it at 144fps

These Xbox cloud instances seem like 5-15 ms away while on my home wifi, and like 30-40ms when on my phone.

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

#499

Post by MobileVet »

EstesPark wrote: post #470
MobileVet wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wow, I completely forgot about Red Alert. That game was a blast!

Right? And that soundtrack! I could listen to Hell March without the game. They actually released the full soundtrack as a CD.

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

#500

Post by blibble »

vel0city wrote: post #498
blibble wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, esports titles will run on a potato pc there's no need to rent a PC 50ms-100ms away for esports when a bottom of the range PC will happily run it at 144fps

These Xbox cloud instances seem like 5-15 ms away while on my home wifi, and like 30-40ms when on my phone.

wifi/celluar have insane jitter than make them completely unusable for competitive gaming

if I ping my router on wifi it ranges from 2-10ms

40-100ms on celluar

(whereas ethernet is consistently about 100us)

Post reply on HN