4 ms·

This is good news. :)

bluescrn 4y ago
Is it? Putting MS in charge might have saved Blizzard from Activision. Maybe they'd have brought WoW to Xbox, or done something new with the Starcraft IP. Perhaps even a new Blizzard MMO...
- pbalcer 4y ago
  But would have prevented many players from actually enjoying Blizzard games. Personally, I am not interested in purchasing an Xbox or installing Windows on my PC, even if the merger is finalized.
  - francislavoie 4y ago
    That's not true, they've committed to continuing to release on other platforms.
  - bluescrn 4y ago
    Platform-exclusive titles have been around for as long as games consoles, that's not going to change. It's annoying that so many great Nintendo games are only available for Switch, and I can't run them at 4k/60fps+ on PC or higher-end console. But that's just how things are. And at the end of they day, they're unimportant entertainment products, we're not talking about monopolies/oligopolies controlling something important.
    - Adverblessly 4y ago
      > It's annoying that so many great Nintendo games are only available for Switch, and I can't run them at 4k/60fps+ on PC or higher-end console. You technically can via emulation, though how legal that is depends on the laws where you are I guess.
- Reason077 4y ago
  Activision selling Blizzard to Microsoft would be a deal I could get behind! On the other hand, as a Mac gamer, maybe it wouldn't be so great? Blizzard have been great at Mac support, with all their titles - except Overwatch - being available on Mac since day 1. But Microsoft hardly releases anything for Mac now days.
  - istor 4y ago
    Diablo 4 won't be released on Mac either. I feel the days of Blizzard being a champion for Mac gaming have ended. They will continue to support it in WoW and the other legacy titles they continue to update. I'd be surprised, merger or not, if they ever release any of their new AAA titles on Mac again.
    - bluescrn 4y ago
      There's not many Macs with suitable GPUs for higher-end gaming, are there? And between the move to Metal as a graphics API and the transition away from Intel CPUs, porting PC games to Mac seems like it'd be rather more of a pain these days.
      - Reason077 4y ago
        Arguably, all modern Macs (with M1 and M2 chips) have GPUs suitable for reasonably high-end gaming. These have the same GPUs used in high-end iPhones and iPads, but with more cores, more RAM, and more memory bandwidth. Some of Blizzard’s titles (World of Warcraft, Hearthstone) were already ported to be M1-native. But even the older titles that haven’t been ported (StarCraft 2, Heroes of the Storm, etc) run great despite being emulated. In fact, they run much faster and smoother on my M1 Mac than they ever did on my Intel Macs!! You’re right, though, that Apple’s attachment to Metal and lack of built-in support for industry standard APIs like Vulkan is an issue (although a 3rd-party Vulkan implementation is available).
      - officeplant 4y ago
        I can play Subnautica, Prodeus, Total Warhammer III, WoW, Metro Exodus, etc. Various settings all at 1080p on the monitor I have connected externally. And that's on a base M1 macbook Air with the 7C GPU setup. Although it does have a fan rigged up underneath my laptop stand. Every other Apple Silicon Mac has even more gpu oomph. Friends with M1/M2 Pro machines are plenty happy with their GPU performance but most of them all just play WoW. One with a M1 Max Studio is enjoying plenty of performance at 4K.
tallanvor 4y ago
It isn't, though, when they haven't been blocking Sony from making significant purchases.
- justinclift 4y ago
  Well, 1/2 is better than 0/2. At least in this context. Maybe they'll get Sony sorted out too at some point.
- flohofwoe 4y ago
  What significant purchases has Sony done though in the gaming space? IIRC it was mostly smaller game development studios, not the (until quite recently at least) largest game publisher in the world.
  - tallanvor 4y ago
    Bungie was a $3.7b acquisition, which I wouldn't consider to be small by any means.
    - ErneX 4y ago
      69 vs 3.7? plus the difference on the amount of IP is huge, not in the same league
    - madeofpalk 4y ago
      Orders of magnitude smaller, but I don't think Sony should be buying game studios also.
- spookie 4y ago
  I understand your concerns in the video game industry landscape, even though I may add that Microsoft may just have been buying out many more studios in recent years. However, I don't believe that tto be the bigger issue. Let's look at this from a bigger perspective: Microsoft is much bigger than Sony. The western world is very much dependent on this giant. Should it have even more power?
- 4y ago

Is it? Putting MS in charge might have saved Blizzard from Activision. Maybe they'd have brought WoW to Xbox, or done something new with the Starcraft IP. Perhaps even a new Blizzard MMO...

pbalcer 4y ago
But would have prevented many players from actually enjoying Blizzard games. Personally, I am not interested in purchasing an Xbox or installing Windows on my PC, even if the merger is finalized.
- francislavoie 4y ago
  That's not true, they've committed to continuing to release on other platforms.
- bluescrn 4y ago
  Platform-exclusive titles have been around for as long as games consoles, that's not going to change. It's annoying that so many great Nintendo games are only available for Switch, and I can't run them at 4k/60fps+ on PC or higher-end console. But that's just how things are. And at the end of they day, they're unimportant entertainment products, we're not talking about monopolies/oligopolies controlling something important.
  - Adverblessly 4y ago
    > It's annoying that so many great Nintendo games are only available for Switch, and I can't run them at 4k/60fps+ on PC or higher-end console. You technically can via emulation, though how legal that is depends on the laws where you are I guess.
Reason077 4y ago
Activision selling Blizzard to Microsoft would be a deal I could get behind! On the other hand, as a Mac gamer, maybe it wouldn't be so great? Blizzard have been great at Mac support, with all their titles - except Overwatch - being available on Mac since day 1. But Microsoft hardly releases anything for Mac now days.
- istor 4y ago
  Diablo 4 won't be released on Mac either. I feel the days of Blizzard being a champion for Mac gaming have ended. They will continue to support it in WoW and the other legacy titles they continue to update. I'd be surprised, merger or not, if they ever release any of their new AAA titles on Mac again.
  - bluescrn 4y ago
    There's not many Macs with suitable GPUs for higher-end gaming, are there? And between the move to Metal as a graphics API and the transition away from Intel CPUs, porting PC games to Mac seems like it'd be rather more of a pain these days.
    - Reason077 4y ago
      Arguably, all modern Macs (with M1 and M2 chips) have GPUs suitable for reasonably high-end gaming. These have the same GPUs used in high-end iPhones and iPads, but with more cores, more RAM, and more memory bandwidth. Some of Blizzard’s titles (World of Warcraft, Hearthstone) were already ported to be M1-native. But even the older titles that haven’t been ported (StarCraft 2, Heroes of the Storm, etc) run great despite being emulated. In fact, they run much faster and smoother on my M1 Mac than they ever did on my Intel Macs!! You’re right, though, that Apple’s attachment to Metal and lack of built-in support for industry standard APIs like Vulkan is an issue (although a 3rd-party Vulkan implementation is available).
    - officeplant 4y ago
      I can play Subnautica, Prodeus, Total Warhammer III, WoW, Metro Exodus, etc. Various settings all at 1080p on the monitor I have connected externally. And that's on a base M1 macbook Air with the 7C GPU setup. Although it does have a fan rigged up underneath my laptop stand. Every other Apple Silicon Mac has even more gpu oomph. Friends with M1/M2 Pro machines are plenty happy with their GPU performance but most of them all just play WoW. One with a M1 Max Studio is enjoying plenty of performance at 4K.

tallanvor 4y ago

It isn't, though, when they haven't been blocking Sony from making significant purchases.

justinclift 4y ago
Well, 1/2 is better than 0/2. At least in this context. Maybe they'll get Sony sorted out too at some point.
flohofwoe 4y ago
What significant purchases has Sony done though in the gaming space? IIRC it was mostly smaller game development studios, not the (until quite recently at least) largest game publisher in the world.
- tallanvor 4y ago
  Bungie was a $3.7b acquisition, which I wouldn't consider to be small by any means.
  - ErneX 4y ago
    69 vs 3.7? plus the difference on the amount of IP is huge, not in the same league
  - madeofpalk 4y ago
    Orders of magnitude smaller, but I don't think Sony should be buying game studios also.
spookie 4y ago
I understand your concerns in the video game industry landscape, even though I may add that Microsoft may just have been buying out many more studios in recent years. However, I don't believe that tto be the bigger issue. Let's look at this from a bigger perspective: Microsoft is much bigger than Sony. The western world is very much dependent on this giant. Should it have even more power?
4y ago