23 ms·
FTC seeks to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard
- smoldesu 4y ago- employees all missed chance at FAANG-level job security - stock value down considerably - shareholders just lost their only chance at a decent buyout - just finished worst media cycle in recent history What's left for Activision Blizzard? What can they do with a company this gutted? Edit: This is a sincere question, I ask it as someone who enjoyed Diablo, Overwatch and Hearthstone. Where do they go from here?
- ocdtrekkie 4y agoFAANG-level job security doesn't get you much these days...
- themoonisachees 4y agoContinue releasing games on wildly popular IPs. The games need not be good, see for example diablo immortal.
- smoldesu 4y agoWhere will they get the money?
- jacksnipe 4y agoSee for example Diablo Immortal.
- FreezerburnV 4y agoWoW, Call of Duty, Overwatch 2, Diablo: Immortal, etc. etc. A lot of people might post vocally online about how awful a lot of stuff they've been doing is, but they're definitely making bank from stuff like the Overwatch 2 shop. It's generally only a vocal minority that talks about how much they dislike the microtransactions or skin prices.
- barkingcat 4y agoThere is money. The properties themselves are money mints. The problem is that it's not enough money for the greedy owners behind the scenes who have nothing to do with the games themselves. Think the hedge fund owners, the banks, the note owners, etc. They want increasing amounts of money such that there's no money left to sustain the teams making the games. A pure case of greed.
- nixass 4y agoNot only immortal but all Diablo games released after D2 LOD
- solardev 4y agoMake NFT Call of Duty skins?
- Godel_unicode 4y agoIs there an example of a company making money in gaming with NFTs? From what I recall, everyone who talked about it has backed away from it. Generally accompanied by some statement about how it has no place in gaming.
- solardev 4y agoSorry, I was just being facetious. Yeah, I really hope that's not anybody's actual strategy lol.
- barkingcat 4y agoDe-consolidate. Blizzard itself can most likely stand on its own. Shed the FIFA license (fifa wants more and more licensing fees every year) - and spin Activision sports out as its own entity/product line. The successful products are fully capable of sustaining their own production & staff, without having to feed the corporate coffers of a conglomerate that only wants increasing profits without any regard to the products and teams themselves. Everyone at the company wins except for the overlords who lorded over the profits and continued on the path of consolidation for the only reason of lining their own pockets.
- fredoralive 4y agoFIFA is EA, not Activision. Although they’ve taken your advice, FIFA 23 is the last one the licence the name, it’s going to be renamed EA Sports FC for the next one.
- someweirdperson 4y agoFIFA is Elctronic Arts, not Activision-Blizzard. And EA just did that, no more FIFA beyond FIFA 2023.
- my_usernam3 4y ago> What's left for Activision Blizzard? What can they do with a company this gutted? Amazing IP! The loud minority hates every new game/expansion with a passion everything, but the majority of people I talked to enjoy playing overwatch 2, enjoy the new wow expansion, and most importantly we'd all (begrudgingly) buy any new warcraft/starcraft/diablo/overwatch game.
- HideousKojima 4y agoYour anecdata isn't backed up by sales numbers. WoW subscriber count peaked a decade ago at 12 million. Blizzard last publicly shared numbers in 2015 and it was under 5 million, and most third party estimates show it continuing to decline. Overwatch 2 will be difficult to directly compare to Overwatch 1 because it's F2P but time will tell.
- buzzerbetrayed 4y agoOverwatch 2 is the most disappointing sequel to a game I’ve ever played. It’s literally overwatch 1 with like 3 new hero’s and a couple maps. Blows my mind that they had the nerve to slap a 2 on it. That being said, I love the game because I lived Overwatch 1.
- my_usernam3 4y ago100% agree to all that. But I think every game being released is considered disappointing at this point. I'm trying to hold off judgement until PvE comes out ... hopefully this lifetime. Anyways my quote is "enjoy playing", and sounds like we both fall into that category. The game engine and polish with the original is often overlooked IMO.
- mushufasa 4y agoFor those with experience here -- is this a death knell or a warning shot? How likely is it both parties challenge this and the deal goes through?
- ocdtrekkie 4y agoThe FTC isn't even the first regulator to say no. I believe Microsoft has been trying to appease the UK already for a bit. I suspect it'll be very hard to get all of the necessary regulatory bodies to sign off at this point.
- CSMastermind 4y agoI am certainly not an expert but I do know that some of these deals go through with preconditions set by the government. > “Microsoft has already shown that it can and will withhold content from its gaming rivals,” said Holly Vedova, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “Today we seek to stop Microsoft from gaining control over a leading independent game studio and using it to harm competition in multiple dynamic and fast-growing gaming markets.” Based on the FTC's statement that reads to me, a layman, like they're trying to extract a commitment from Microsoft to publish future games on all platforms.
- plopz 4y agoWhat do you mean by platforms?
- arrosenberg 4y agoThe FTC would seek to force MS to sign something saying "If you let us buy Blizzard, we will sell the game on Steam/Epic/MS Store on equal terms". Distribution is a great chokepoint for a monopolist, so the agreement would (theoretically, since it never works out in practice) take that away from MS. I don't personally think the FTC is going for a consent decree here though, Lina Khan is about antitrust, I think they are trying to block mergers as a matter of business.
- newguynewphone 4y ago
- haunter 4y agoAh yeah bust Disney buying up everything was okay? Also if not Microsoft then a chinese corp will buy Blizz, for example Tencent. But I guess that would be okay
- wnevets 4y ago> Ah yeah bust Disney buying up everything was okay? What has Disney bought up during the current administration?
- newbie578 4y agoI agree with this comment. I have no problems with Microsoft getting blocked, but disallow others also. Don't let Disney, Tencent or Apple, or some 3rd party then do the exact same thing.
- emn13 4y agoMerely because one questionable thing happened doesn't mean other questionable things are excused. We don't need to embrace a race to the bottom.
- coldpie 4y agoDuring the Fox acquisition by Disney, the FTC was majority Republican. It is now majority Democrat. Elections matter!
- unpopualropp 4y agoAnd Ticketmaster merged with Live Nation under the Obama admin. Elections matter!
- themadturk 4y agoThe action in this case is less about the party in power than in the individuals involved. The FTC has been sleepwalking for decades. Biden appointed an FTC chairperson who has the reputation of being an anti-trust bulldog and appears to be committed to actually putting some teeth in the regulations. She can't especially go back in time, but she can certainly take action on what's upcoming.
- madelyn 4y agoThank goodness. It's nice to see action here.
- reset-password 4y agoI'm relieved to hear this simply because I like to play some of their games but wasn't about to do the "Microsoft Account" thing.
- unpopularopp 4y agoMeanwhile Ticketmaster and Live Nation laughing their assess off
- judge2020 4y agoMaybe not for long - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/06/taylor-swift-ticketmaster-fiasco-congress-asks-live-nation-for-answers.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/06/taylor-swift-ticketmaster-fi...
- barbazoo 4y ago> Lawmakers have some questions for Live Nation’s CEO ... > The House Energy and Commerce Committee penned a letter to Michael Rapino Tuesday asking the executive to clarify ... > ... Ticketmaster could be slapped with fines ... This has zero teeth and won't change a single thing. It's virtue signalling at best.
- bombcar 4y agoI misread that as the "Department of Energy" and was wondering if Ticketmaster was about to get nuked.
- zapataband1 4y agoDo Marianos
- cactusplant7374 4y agoGreat store. I loved shopping there when I lived in Chicago. Great produce and products. Not expensive. And not many people walking around when I went on the weekends.
- CameronBanga 4y agoYou wouldn't be happy to visit now then. :)
- cactusplant7374 4y agoWhat happened?
- deathanatos 4y agoMeanwhile I want to watch an anime, but Disney bought exclusive rights to it … and aren't even running it on their own platform, in my country.
- Dracophoenix 4y agoWhich one?
- M4v3R 4y agoRecently it was Bleach for me, not available in Poland for whatever reason.
- siggen 4y agoSummertime Render?
- deathanatos 4y agoNailed it.
- bogwog 4y agoPiracy is the only option they’re giving you then.
- gameshot911 4y agoHe could also just not watch it right now, and hope it becomes available in the future. Let's not pretend that unethical stealing is the only option.
- bheadmaster 4y agoLet's not pretend that unauthorized copying is the same as stealing. If a hundred billion aliens in another galaxy watched a pirated movie, nobody would even know. If the aliens came down to Earth and took all our water, we'd all die.
- bdz 4y agoEh as a gamer I don't like this. Unlike the majority of HN I don't hate MS, they have quality stuff as far as gaming goes. Blizzard on the other hand sucks so much nowadays, they ruined Overwatch, the whole Diablo Immortal fiasco, what they did with WoW Classic etc. And not even talking about the whole employee harassment scandal. They lost their ways long time ago. If anything I'd rather see them under MS.
- yesco 4y agoI assume the main concern is Call of Duty becoming an Xbox exclusive
- bdz 4y agoMeanwhile there are countless games from AAAs to indies that are Steam or Epic Games exclusives but I guess that's also okay for whatever reason. Just because I can install multiple stores on my PC that doesn't make it better when it's locked in to one store.
- criddell 4y agoIf the current situation sucks then doesn't it makes sense to block moves that would make it suck even more?
- traverseda 4y agoDoesn't it? Why not?
- miiiiiike 4y agoI won't play Epic exclusive games. Valve put so much effort into Linux as a platform that they've bought my loyalty. When I see a game go from a Steam pre-order Epic exclusive it basically disappears from my RADAR.
- _carbyau_ 4y agoI recall Mechwarrior 5 suffering that fate. Pre-orders on Steam turned into Epic exclusive caused an uproar. It came out on Steam a year later and I waited another year after that, then waited for a sale. And got a patched, polished game with mods - fun for co-op with friends. I don't think my "protest delayed" purchase 2+ years later made an impact on them. But it sated me.
- ulkesh 4y agoI completely support thwarting monopolistic practices and even trying to prevent them from being possible. I just hope Blizzard can one day be completely divorced from Activision. Whether Microsoft is a better fit, I cannot say, but I do feel as if Blizzard has been making one poor decision after another ever since the acquisition in 2008 -- and only very recently have things looked somewhat brighter for them.
- rubyist5eva 4y agoNothing monopolistic about this acquisition. Microsoft is a small player in a huge market right now.
- Godel_unicode 4y agoIn America today, when people say “monopoly” they just mean “big”. It’s watered down to the point of being meaningless.
- jxi 4y agoAs a childhood fan of all things Blizzard (clocked in thousands of hours on their games), Activision has destroyed any respect I had for this company. They defiled every franchise, and Diablo Immortal is a sickening game. Sincerely hope the deal falls through and the company goes bankrupt.
- chrononaut 4y ago> Diablo Immortal is a sickening game. I actually only (re-)learned of the game recently (I recall its original announcement), but not enough to know anything more about it and I have been meaning to go back to it and check it out. Do you have a short version of what lends you that opinion?
- Zircom 4y agoI think the biggest issue people point to is you have to sink literally 10 years or $100,000 into the game to fully upgrade a character with how the rewards are structured/priced.
- jesuspiece 4y agoIm totally in support of stopping monopolies but idk guys, Blizzard sucks so much now I kinda want to see MSFT fix it lol
- ipaddr 4y agoMore likely this lower msft quality.
- squarefoot 4y agoJust wait when the price for "fixing" it will be having all their titles either Xbox/Windows only, or more expensive and/or with lesser features, addons, DLC, updates etc. on other platforms. Monopolies suck, always and everywhere, no matter what apparent improvement they seem to bring at first.
- _cenw 4y agoXbox seems to do just fine getting people to buy Game Pass over offering games at full price. That changes the status quo of how games are bought and consumed enough that they really don't have to change the prior model of $70 entry fee + DLC that Sony is still using to entice anyone to switch who doesn't really want to play Sony exclusives. Yes - Sony are the ones to hold on to exclusives right now. Not Microsoft.
- gwill 4y agoexclusivity is the only thing i fear from this. that said, id probably give blizzard another shot down the road if they were bought by MS. the rest of the things you listed being a problem are already rampant through BlizzActivision and have turned a lot of people off to their games.
- Rebelgecko 4y agoIdk, I look at how Microsoft handled the Bubgie -> 343 transition, and how they let that get away from them, and I'm skeptical they have what it takes to turn around a studio that has management issues.
- mehlmao 4y ago
- miiiiiike 4y agoWhat's funny is that I'd never consider buying an Xbox because every console game I want to play is a Sony or Nintendo exclusive.
- qbasic_forever 4y agoI don't understand why game developers should be publically traded companies. You have a creative vision, you raise or borrow money to build it, you build a game, you sell it to pay off your loans and fund your next creative vision--it should be that simple. The last thing you want is the public to start having control and financial interest in your creative vision. That gives us bullshit like loot boxes, NFTs, etc.
- lokar 4y agoAAA games are more like hollywood blockbusters than games from the old days. Massive budgets, lots of risk, etc Requires a different corporate structure
- qbasic_forever 4y agoHyper real AAA games maybe, but some of the biggest and most money making games like Minecraft were private creations of a person or small team. Minecraft by all accounts has gotten much worse and less popular after Microsoft bought it--people still prefer the old java version vs. newer Microsoft developed editions.
- kedean 4y agoAAA is generally a budgetary designation. Minecraft was built as an indie game, then bought by a massive studio. It doesn't become AAA because of who owns it.
- jnwatson 4y agoMinecraft is the exception that proves the rule. There have been perhaps 5 indie games in the last 10 years that made it big money wise.
- redblacktree 4y agoI'm not sure how much money they made, but off the top of my head, Factorio, Stardew Valley, and Terraria were all indie dev games that became hugely popular. And I suspect that most indie titles with any popularity make money for their creators, even if they aren't minting billionaires the way Minecraft did.
- cjf4 4y agoWhile I don't think centralization of media is a good thing, the anti-competitive argument doesn't make sense given the amount of viable competition. Microsoft is probably in 3rd place in console sales, lower if you include PC and define Steam as a separate platform. If the merger were completed, it would certainly change things, but it wouldn't be any guarantee of Microsoft's dominance, or even a first place finish. So to block the acquisition based on something that might happen seems like a clear case of regulatory overreach.
- Karsteski 4y agoGood. Microsoft buying up every single game publisher they can get their hands on is good for no one.
- markus_zhang 4y agoI agree. Companies like MSFT are crucial so we should allow certain degree of "monopoly" (they are more like software infrastructure). But gaming companies are not essential.
- LatteLazy 4y agoOff topic: I misread this as FTX Seeks to block... And was shocked but weirdly not surprised...
- locallost 4y agoI am not surprised. The new US administration woke up the regulators from their year if not decade long nap. Facebook buying that VR company blocked, Penguin Simon&Schuster merger blocked, and now this. You can't have a market economy without competition.
- RajT88 4y agoAt least 10. But even 10 years ago, they were in a lower-appetite state for antitrust enforcement. I think we could say that the appetite got lower around 2000ish, right?
- gmueckl 4y agoAround 2000? Hm... didn't the big Microsoft antitrust case get its teeth pulled by political influence around that time?
- RajT88 4y agoJust so. ETA: although this is much bigger than just MSFT.
- anankaie 4y agoNo, the antitrust case turned slightly on appeal (due to Microsoft being able to point at the judge giving interviews about the case on TV /during/ the case), removing the breakup order and enabling them to settle with a Consent Decree. Note that it did not invalidate the findings of fact. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.#Appeals_Court_decision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
- gmueckl 4y agoHm, my recollection may be wrong here, but I think that the transition from the Clinton to the Bush administration changed how the DoJ approached the case and allowed the settlement to happen. It was my impression at the time that the Clinton administration would rather have continued in court at that point.
- theandrewbailey 4y agoThis deal was announced almost a year ago. Let this be another example of governments being slow to react to things.
- Mikeb85 4y agoI mean, the purchase doesn't make any financial sense except to try make all of Activision Blizzard's games MS exclusives to help their platforms...
- drannex 4y agoGood, monopolies are only good for board rooms. Break them up.
- pwthornton 4y agoI don't have an issue with this per se, but Sony, the biggest player in this space, has been gobbling up studios for years. Sony has by far the strongest set of 1st party studios, and this deal wouldn't change that. The lack of consistent enforcement of these laws really makes this a mess. And, while CoD is a mega-seller, it is hardly unique, has been declining in quality (and was never top tier), and it is weird to assume it will be a huge phenomenon forever.
- lkramer 4y agoSony hasn't bought anything on this scale (and the scale of Bethesda) though. Microsoft have also bought plenty of smaller studios without getting into much trouble. I personally am glad that they seem to react before it's too late for a chance. The gaming market still have a fairly healthy amount of competition. If 5 years down the road MS had managed to suffocate Sony, then it would be too late to react.
- hbn 4y agoYup. Microsoft continuing to make purchases like this is how we end up with them being the Disney of gaming. A giant backlog of great stuff that was made by smaller studios placing their bets on a project they think is good and has passion behind it, and a bunch of perfectly mediocre, forgettable new stuff with logos of IPs we used to love, the product of numbers crunched from focus group testing that couldn't possibly offend anyone for any reason.
- Hamuko 4y ago>Sony hasn't bought anything on this scale (and the scale of Bethesda) though. Yeah. The biggest studio acquisition that Sony has done in the last decade was Bungie, that employs about 820 people. The next biggest would be Insomniac Games with over 400 employees? Meanwhile Activision-Blizzard had closer to 10,000 employees, and Zenimax had >2000 employees. The scales seem quite vastly different.
- activitypea 4y agoBungie's ARR blows Bethesda's revenue out of the water.
- metacriticcap 4y agoMicrosoft 10y deal for SOny is fair. Who knows if people will want to continue to play CoD in 2034. In the meanwhile, you have world 3rd largest company pouring resources into a great company, possibly increasing the headcount (since the costs are negligible compared to Microsoft size). You also have the harassement issues that Microsoft can address. Also, the counterfactual can very much be one where ABK as an independent public company makes a deal to make CoD a Playstation exclusive. In the acquisition scenario, anyone will be able to play (including Nintendo users)
- bogwog 4y agoUntil the regulators stop putting pressure on Microsoft, then they’ll start clawing back franchises and making those games Xbox exclusives. Having them on (much more popular) competitor consoles is good for them in the short term because it grows the audience/value of the IP. So when they do finally become exclusive, it will force more fans to switch. From the OP: > In a complaint issued today, the FTC pointed to Microsoft’s record of acquiring and using valuable gaming content to suppress competition from rival consoles, including its acquisition of ZeniMax, parent company of Bethesda Softworks (a well-known game developer). Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles. So it seems the FTC is catching on to what a lot of the tech industry has known for decades: never trust Microsoft
- georgeburdell 4y agoI’m glad Bobby Kotick isn’t getting out of his mess with a golden parachute just yet.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- wdb 4y agoClearly, FTC, doesn't take Nintendo seriously as potential competition for Sony and Microsoft. Maybe they do this to try to get support from Microsoft regarding the Apple and Google App Store. Anyways some what expected but still disappointing. Feels like FTC could fooled by Sony in my opinion.
- Kukumber 4y agoThis should have been blocked way earlier, you are blind or corrupted if you don't see a monopoly in the making This part is important: "In a complaint issued today, the FTC pointed to Microsoft’s record of acquiring and using valuable gaming content to suppress competition from rival consoles, including its acquisition of ZeniMax, parent company of Bethesda Softworks (a well-known game developer). Microsoft decided to make several of Bethesda's titles including Starfield and Redfall Microsoft exclusives despite assurances it had given to European antitrust authorities that it had no incentive to withhold games from rival consoles."
- haskellandchill 4y agoBut Sony can buy Bungie? It seems like a selective ruling. Doesn't having Blizzard/Activision across consoles suppress the need for competition and having it owned by Microsoft increase it for Playstation and Nintendo? They are doing great already with in house content and Microsoft is trying to compete by acquisition, which seems fair to allow.
- jeppester 4y agoThe Bungie deal is hardly relevant because it's roughly 20 times smaller. Even the ZeniMax deal was more than twice the size of the Bungie deal and it went through. All past aquisitions are not even close to these and therefore also irrelevant. Microsoft is already competing fairly well after their aquisition of ZeniMax. And let's not forget that they have a monopoly on the OS that PC games run on. As a whole MS is also many times larger than Sony. There's is just no reason to let them have this extra power. As I see it letting this deal go through would be a big gamble on MS severely screwing up the advantage of having way more popular IP than Sony could ever dream of.
- coding123 4y agoProbably a good idea. Instead of confirming Playstation/Nintendo releases for the rest of time, they seek to make all Activision games XBox only. That's the real goal. This would kill playstation and nintendo.
- robswc 4y agoEverything else aside, it is just a shame what has happened to Blizzard. They used to have a reputation of quality and care and now its anything but. Blizzard has completely tarnished its reputation for a quick buck. I guess you're supposed to milk the money while you can but its just an awful look.
- polski-g 4y agoSupport tickets in WOW are now almost up to a 9 day response time.
- robswc 4y agoThat has got to be frustrating. I'm a long time OW player and I literally _never_ bought skins or used them. I had 1k in loot boxes that I never opened just because I don't care about the skins... but now any sense of "progress" even if it was to just hoard virtual boxes is now gone and replaced with a big "screw you, pay me" button. It just feels so scummy. I just wish for once companies could think of ways to make money without screwing over developers _and_ players.
- irusensei 4y agoRecently Sony cried out to regulators that if MS deprives the company from Cawadudy Microsoft will turn them into Nintendo[0]. I'm sorry Sony but you are lame. Ever since the company left Japan for California their focus changed and you lost all the magic. Japanese game studios were treated like second class citizens and special treatment was given to boring AAA western studios. It would be a huge positive if Microsoft actually managed to turn you into Nintendo. [0]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/637cecede90e076b8043d8cd/Sony_Interactive_Entertainment.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/637cecede90e0...
- jbm 4y agoI can't believe I am saying this, but turning into Nintendo would be a huge step up for both Sony and Microsoft. My Switch (and Oculus Plus) are consistently being played years after purchase. My PS4 last got fired up to play Death Stranding and Metal Gear Solid 5.
- madrox 4y agoFTC is blocking this on grounds that Microsoft would acquire a lot of franchises they could turn into platform exclusives. I'm curious what the FTC thinks of Sony then, and the number of studios they've acquired over the years to churn out exclusive titles. Sony has Spiderman, for crying out loud. Arguably Sony has been more consumer hostile than Microsoft has with anti-consumer pricing and resistance to cross-platform play. From where I sit, Microsoft has to acquire Activision to stay competitive.
- danbolt 4y agoWhile I’m no Sony fan, I do think they tend to have a stronger history of fostering new intellectual property rather than acquiring it if you compare them to Microsoft. Or, I can think of Ratchet and Clank, Last of Us, or anything Japan Studio makes off the top of my head. When I think of Microsoft’s IP, such as Halo, Gears of War, or Age of Empires*, things feel more acquisition-oriented. Personally, I’d like to see Microsoft imitate Sony in that fashion of bringing new IP up where they can.
- madrox 4y agoWhile I don't disagree, companies don't get points if their monopolies are home grown vs acquired. Xbox arguably doesn't have the same level of compelling exclusives that Playstation does. The FTC saying this will harm competition feels disingenuous.
- ThatPlayer 4y agoThere is a difference between exclusive titles and acquiring studios. Sony's Spider-man game was not developed by an acquired studio (they were acquired afterwards). Xbox could compete with exclusive games without acquiring studios to stay competitive with Sony's exclusive games, but how can Sony compete with a 69 billion dollar acquisition?
- madrox 4y agoI fail to see how the means of acquiring exclusivity matters if the outcome is the same. Would this feel different if Microsoft slowly acquired exclusivity of these franchises over 20 years instead of in a single day?
- mrkramer 4y agoHow about congress passing a law which prohibits M&A of big companies because this is getting ridiculous.
- jmyeet 4y agoThis is one of those things where I might care if I didn't think the games industry was doomed either way. Why is it doomed? Because of pay-to-win, microtransactions and in-app purchases. There's just so much money to be made with mobile games. Diablo Immortal probably cost almost nothing to make and will probably make over $1 billion when all is said and done. How can a games company ignore that? This is getting to the point where it requires government intervention. Virtual currencies, randomness (eg loot boxes) and obfuscated outcomes all combine to hidehow much real money things cost and how much you're spending. It's predatory in exactly the same way slots are. Until that happens, games are going to just be sports franchises, shooters and mobile games with a handful of exception that are mostly longstanding franchises.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kibwen 4y agoGood. The centralization that we have is already terrible enough without making it any worse. But wake me up when the FTC grows a backbone and remembers that it has the power to break companies up as well.
- jgrowl 4y ago"In gaming we have one goal: which is to bring more games to more gamers on all platforms" - Satya Nadella (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZdo0elQI_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZdo0elQI_8) How does xbox-exclusive releases fit in with this goal? Are are just playing word games where you mean you'll release a bunch of indie and old games to more platforms while restricting new games? I am not making a judgement whether or not the merger should go through, but I would love that the result to be the end of deliberate platform exclusive titles
- PeterCorless 4y agoBut I was totally wanting Clippy as a questgiver in Ogrimmar.
- nerdjon 4y agoI can't shake the feeling that this is protecting Sony a bit too much. This isn't the primary console buying to remain in power. This is the current third place platform buying to be a competitive force. Considering Nintendo just does Nintendo things and I doubt either company really sees them as a competitor (which isn't a bad thing to be clear, but they clearly have different ideas of gaming). We basically only have Sony here who has a long history of anti consumer tactics that in my opinion do a lot of harm on the gaming space. We are starting to see the Cocky "we can't do anything wrong" attitude from Sony again this generation that we saw when they first announced the PS3. That is bad for gamers and the industry. Just look at the complete opposite approach that Sony took with the PS4. Sure they still made some of their questionable decisions, especially later in the generation. The fact is we need a strong competitor to Sony and Microsoft has made a lot of strides to get there, but this acquisition will put them right up next to Sony. Now yes, Microsoft has a history as well. Particularly during the 360 generation, we can't ignore that. But we also can't ignore that Phil Spensor was not in charge at that time. We also can't ignore that as gamers. Activision Blizzard has been in a bad state for a while now. Sure they may still be raking in money, but their games have continued to stumble over the last few years. That is before you get into all the harassment issues that a drastic change is necessary and honestly I don't know what other company I would actually want to buy them. Sure not Sony, EA, and outside of those... who could realistically afford too. For the record: I am saying this as someone with all 3 consoles and a gaming PC. But my playstation is my least used console because I despise many of the business practices that Sony gets into. I don't want to reward those behaviors.
- ARandumGuy 4y agoThis isn't about Microsoft vs Sony. This isn't even about anti-consumer tactics. This is about preventing consolidation and monopolization of an industry. Monopolization stifles competition, which always hurts consumers in the long run. There is no reason a consumer should want this deal to go through, even if you're the biggest Xbox fan.
- julienb_sea 4y agoConsolidation is not inherently anti-consumer. Example: in this context, consolidation could lead to a merger of Blizzard games and subscriptions into Xbox game pass without any price increase. This would be a pretty clear win for consumers.
- atlgator 4y agoDoes this seem fishy to anyone else? ATVI's stock price has been largely buoyed by the Microsoft deal instead of taking a 20%+ haircut like the rest of tech. Anyone else think Sateya called up a buddy in Congress and told them to kill the deal to avoid buying so high above market value? Microsoft probably can't walk away on their own without some contractual consequences (e.g. Elon's Twitter deal lawsuit).
- theptip 4y agoBen Thompson made a good case recently for why it might be premature/misguided to block this deal. Basically, Microsoft is trying to create a completely new business model with Game Pass, which could be a big improvement for consumers if they don't need to buy consoles or gaming rigs any more. > Microsoft, like Google, is creating a cloud streaming service; Microsoft, though, is not only offering a business model that is uniquely enabled by the cloud, but is spending billions of dollars directly and indirectly (through foregone sales) to get that business model off of the ground (when-and-if Game Pass has a huge subscriber base, then signing up 3rd-parties will be easy — the challenge is getting to scale in the first place). This is the work that Google was never willing to do, and why Stadia was doomed to fail. > This also explains why I worry the eagerness of regulators to act before markets exist in any meaningful way is a bad idea. One of the acquisitions Microsoft has made in pursuit of this subscription strategy is Activision Blizzard, and I do, for the record, think it is important to scrutinize this deal, and perhaps extract guarantees from Microsoft that some of the titles involved (particularly Call of Duty) remain cross-platform (which as I noted, makes economic sense anyways)... > This framing suggests that Microsoft is going to unfairly win a cloud gaming market that is inevitable, much like Google once won the inevitable Internet search opportunity. The lesson of the Google cemetery, though, is that inevitable opportunities are the exceptions, not the rule; to that end, I would argue that Stadia’s failure is evidence that absent a Microsoft-level investment the cloud gaming market will never come into being in the first place. https://stratechery.com/2022/google-kills-stadia-why-stadia-was-a-bad-product-microsoft-activision-and-antitrust/ https://stratechery.com/2022/google-kills-stadia-why-stadia-...
- ollien 4y agoThis could be done without an acquisition though, no? There are a bunch of games on Game Pass from non-MS studios. They just need to draft an agreement with Activision, which would be far cheaper and less monopolistic.
- theptip 4y agoPerhaps, it's unclear to me what that would look like though. How would Activision bill Microsoft for N users playing M games? I think they would want $N*M*MSRP (perhaps * <small-bulk-discount>) for that. Which probably isn't viable for Microsoft to bootstrap their platform. Indeed, would Activision even cut a deal here? In some sense Microsoft's Game Pass is a direct competitor to them selling individual game SKUs, so why would they strengthen Microsoft's strategic position with a licensing deal? Whereas if Microsoft has a large library of first-party titles, they can take a loss on unit sales to grow the platform. At some point if they are successful they hope to get to a size where other AAA third-party publishers like Activision are willing to sign a licensing deal like "Microsoft agrees to pay $Xm / year for unlimited streaming of the CoD franchise". But it's not obvious to me that there's a viable path to getting Activision content on their streaming platform. (It's not available on GeForce Now, for example). Anyway, on this licensing point I'm not an expert, so I'm interested in others' thoughts here. Particularly what the current licenses for existing GeForce Now / Game Pass games look like.
- encryptluks2 4y agoMicrosoft... "We love Linux!" Microsoft, "We make all attempts to prevent games from running on anything but our platform."
- jessicas_rabbit 4y ago“Today we seek to stop Microsoft from gaining control over a leading independent game studio…”
- bastardoperator 4y agoBecause Minecraft isn't on every platform. I don't think the FTC understands how games sell.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- rvz 4y agoThis is quite frankly unsurprising and predictable that the FTC would get involved, sue and investigate Microsoft over this acquisition, as predicted here [0] and here [1]. I am neither supporting any company. If you are against the Figma acquisition and the consolidation of medium-sized companies, then you should be also against this one, which the FTC has made the right decision with this. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33518102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33518102 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32606584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32606584 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33518102 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33518102
- TeeMassive 4y agoMicrosoft pretty much hosts/semi-controls the free software industry and ecosystem. Same for work emails, work operating systems, work cloud, work documents and work seeking itself. And by extension, it is in charge of running a lot of our governments at all levels. And now they're also in entertainment. I mean they were before, but with Activation Blizzard they will be 50% of our games. It's hard enough but doable to de-google one's life. But Microsoft? I guess some redneck survivalists achieved that to some extent.
- CivBase 4y agoI dislike how much many markets, including gaming, have been consolidating just as much as the next guy... but this justification from the FTC reads like nonsense to me. I think what's really happening is the FTC (as they have shown for the last few years) wants to make an example out of a big tech company and they've decided to be overtly hostile to any large tech acquisition out of the gate. > With control over Activision’s blockbuster franchises, Microsoft would have both the means and motive to harm competition by manipulating Activision’s pricing, degrading Activision’s game quality or player experience on rival consoles and gaming services, changing the terms and timing of access to Activision’s content, or withholding content from competitors entirely, resulting in harm to consumers. How does any of this harm competition? These represent competitive actions. MS would be forcing Sony to invest in new features/content for their platform in order to make up for lost appeal. If a consumer is "harmed" by a game not being available on another platform, then first-party exclusives should be considered harmful unilaterally. I should hope that this same reasoning applies to Sony's recent acquisition of Bungie. And it sure is suspicious how Nintendo isn't brought up here. Nintendo's ongoing success without CoD was a key argument for Brazil's approval of the deal. How can Sony argue that CoD is essential to them when MS has offered them a 10 year grace period to figure out something that Nintendo clearly had figured out from the start? I at least kind of understood the arguments Sony made about cloud gaming being a nascent market which MS could dominate by coupling their Azure platform with Game Pass and a few big name titles like CoD... but they don't really say anything about that in this release. I guess we'll see if this pans out for the FTC should they choose to sue, but I'd bet heavily against them if this release is a representation of the arguments they intend to make in court.
- deafpolygon 4y agoWhere was the FTC before Disney snapped up all the media companies?
- 6510 4y agoI thought the history of denying access was interesting. I wonder if other poorly behaved companies could be forbidden to acquire even small things if it is just to - you know - shut it down. Like you did last time?
- eachro 4y agowhy was there never a Warcraft 4? Were the World of Warcraft expansions effectively continuations of that franchise?