7 ms·

I disagree with the opinion that it harms consumers. The economist has an article it recently published that argues that this deal actually helps consumers by s

I disagree with the opinion that it harms consumers. The economist has an article it recently published that argues that this deal actually helps consumers by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming as an option. I tend to agree. Just because one large company is buying another large company doesn't mean the deal should be blocked.

NovaDudely 3y ago
> argues that this deal actually helps consumers I'm listening... > by speeding up the transition to "streaming" games and cloud gaming Ewww... no thanks!
- topkai22 3y ago
  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.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    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 open for 20 years (My copy of Half Life 2 is right where I left it). Sony has done a reasonable job. I don’t know about Microsoft. Nintendo has failed several times, but may have finally figured it out with the Switch. I know I can buy discs and cartridges from any previous era and as long as I have a system (or emulator), I can play them, lend them, or sell them. Digital versions allow me to play, but for how long. I can’t lend or sell them. If I get the urge to play Resogun in 2033 and don’t have it downloaded, am I going to be able to? I do think there may be a generational component to it as well. I’ve always thought Gen X is more tied to the idea of “owning” a copy (music, movies, games), while younger generations are more comfortable with digital only releases, or even subscription catalogues that change over time as the primary means of entertainment.
    - bbarn 3y ago
      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.
      - arcanemachiner 3y ago
        What exactly are they selling if there's no game inside?
        goosedragons 3y ago
        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.
        Tsiklon 3y ago
        Generally the disk in the box has to have something on it that runs (It may not even be the game). This is due to the lead time involved in pressing and validating the gold master that becomes the game disk. This allows the developers to continue working on their launch day ‘patch’. With the development cycle and Sony and Microsoft’s distribution setup as it is now, physical copies effectively act as a token to play the game only. Using Cyberpunk 2077 as an example a recent patch to the game mandated a nearly full redownload of the whole game on PS5 and Xbox Series - ~60+GB. On PC it was ~5G.
        Arrath 3y ago
        A little bootstrap installer and license key that lets you download the whole-ass game, generally.
      - autoexec 3y ago
        > The majority of new games can't work offline source?
    - 3y ago
  - Jochim 3y ago
    Game streaming is a great option to have but it incentivises the same behaviour we've seen from companies that move to a SAAS model: Charge a monthly fee and remove the option to own the product. Not actually owning the games is a problem. Nvidia's service, GeForce Now, originally allowed you to play any game you had purchased on Steam, under the theory that you were using your license to play it. Their library was decimated when that was challenged legally. Most of the services don't offer the same modding options as you would have on PC either. If I were to pick between the two, I'd rather we move towards having more control over the things we purchase than less.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      too bad the choice isnt ours and we've long seen how other audiences in other media have chosen. People simply don't care about those things as a majority
      - Jochim 3y ago
        I hesitate to blame the audience when vendors are all too keen to force the transition themselves. See Adobe, Microsoft, and Atlassian's discontinuing/restriction of on premises licenses for their products. People often seem to have a general sense of helplessness when it comes to large businesses, why get upset about it when there's nothing you can do? I don't see anything unless people find the motivation to make it a political issue. A personal anecdote that I think exemplifies the problem: I was once double invoiced for custom charges by FedEx. The phone number on the invoice lead to a phone tree where every option simply hung up. Depending on where I looked there were three different email addresses, and an online form; only one provided an automated response and my first three emails were ignored entirely. Their customer support line was unable to connect to that department. At one point I was given an individual's work email and received no response either. Despite this, I continued to receive past due, and final notice letters from them. It took months and hours of my time to resolve a problem they created, had I not persisted, I would have had to deal with collections and credit agencies. Why should we allow companies behave this way without repercussions?
- cman1444 3y ago
  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.
  - ffhhttt 3y ago
    There is a huge difference between subscription services like Xbox game pass and streaming
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > 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.
    - fxtentacle 3y ago
      "You'll own nothing and be happy" It described life in an unnamed city in which the narrator does not own a car, a house, any appliances, or any clothes, and instead relies on shared services for all of his daily needs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_ha...
      - johnnyanmac 3y ago
Jochim 3y ago
I'd rather we were transitioning towards consumers actually owning their games rather than towards them not being able to run them on their own hardware. We've already seen how this plays out with the proliferation of SAAS and the move to subscription models that leave consumers with nothing if the company goes bust or they stop paying. Companies that grow beyond a certain size are harmful to the economy. The harm to consumers isn't always direct or obvious but it reduces choice and creates a situation where the company wields outsized power over consumers and the state. I mostly like Microsoft but they should be a much smaller and more focused company.
radiKal07 3y ago
you are completely disconnected from reality my guy
raxxorraxor 3y ago
I don't believe that streaming games is in the interest of consumers in the slightest. That said, I don't have a problem with the merger. It won't help consumers and it won't help people working for the studios. That was not the case in any merger in the past. While they have a lot of solid IPs that will generate billions for years to come, I believe these studios have a hard time to innovate. The likelihood that at some point someone will eat their lunch is pretty high. Gaming IPs have a lot of momentum, but there are always new challengers around the corner.
krolden 3y ago
Cloud gaming is only good if the cloud is your computer.
KingMachiavelli 3y ago
Is it this article? https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/06/22/blocking-the-microsoft-activision-deal-would-harm-consumers https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/06/22/blocking-the-mi... Honestly... IMO that analysis is completely misguided and nearly contradictory. Even if I accept the premise that the merger will (1) increase cloud and game streaming and (2) cloud/streaming games is good for consumers, I would argue it "harms consumers" under the legal anti-competitive and anti-trust arguments. My argument is that achieving premise (1) via a merger is by-definition anti-consumer because it would strengthen cloud/game streaming outside of actual consumer demand. It's not possible or the place for the courts to decide what consumers "want" beyond high level details like cost, and availability, etc. There's no rule preventing Activison from licensing it's games to Microsoft's, Sony's, etc. cloud gaming services. If there was genuine consumer demand for cloud gaming, then Activison is in the perfect position to get the best deal from all/any of the existing cloud gaming providers. > (Article) Subscriptions and streaming have turned the music and television industries upside down in the past couple of decades. Music, TV, and Film streaming all grew out of independent providers. Really it started with rentals which used the "first-sale" doctrine to even exist - it doesn't get much more independent than buying the standalone product and renting it. The fact that TV/Movie streaming is now fragmenting is causing large amounts of pain and cost for consumers not less. Over the past decade only Music streaming has remained simple and cheap - and all of the major providers here are independent of the record companies.

NovaDudely 3y ago

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

topkai22 3y ago
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.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  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 open for 20 years (My copy of Half Life 2 is right where I left it). Sony has done a reasonable job. I don’t know about Microsoft. Nintendo has failed several times, but may have finally figured it out with the Switch. I know I can buy discs and cartridges from any previous era and as long as I have a system (or emulator), I can play them, lend them, or sell them. Digital versions allow me to play, but for how long. I can’t lend or sell them. If I get the urge to play Resogun in 2033 and don’t have it downloaded, am I going to be able to? I do think there may be a generational component to it as well. I’ve always thought Gen X is more tied to the idea of “owning” a copy (music, movies, games), while younger generations are more comfortable with digital only releases, or even subscription catalogues that change over time as the primary means of entertainment.
  - bbarn 3y ago
    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.
    - arcanemachiner 3y ago
      What exactly are they selling if there's no game inside?
      - goosedragons 3y ago
        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.
      - Tsiklon 3y ago
        Generally the disk in the box has to have something on it that runs (It may not even be the game). This is due to the lead time involved in pressing and validating the gold master that becomes the game disk. This allows the developers to continue working on their launch day ‘patch’. With the development cycle and Sony and Microsoft’s distribution setup as it is now, physical copies effectively act as a token to play the game only. Using Cyberpunk 2077 as an example a recent patch to the game mandated a nearly full redownload of the whole game on PS5 and Xbox Series - ~60+GB. On PC it was ~5G.
      - Arrath 3y ago
        A little bootstrap installer and license key that lets you download the whole-ass game, generally.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      > The majority of new games can't work offline source?
  - 3y ago
- Jochim 3y ago
  Game streaming is a great option to have but it incentivises the same behaviour we've seen from companies that move to a SAAS model: Charge a monthly fee and remove the option to own the product. Not actually owning the games is a problem. Nvidia's service, GeForce Now, originally allowed you to play any game you had purchased on Steam, under the theory that you were using your license to play it. Their library was decimated when that was challenged legally. Most of the services don't offer the same modding options as you would have on PC either. If I were to pick between the two, I'd rather we move towards having more control over the things we purchase than less.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    too bad the choice isnt ours and we've long seen how other audiences in other media have chosen. People simply don't care about those things as a majority
    - Jochim 3y ago
      I hesitate to blame the audience when vendors are all too keen to force the transition themselves. See Adobe, Microsoft, and Atlassian's discontinuing/restriction of on premises licenses for their products. People often seem to have a general sense of helplessness when it comes to large businesses, why get upset about it when there's nothing you can do? I don't see anything unless people find the motivation to make it a political issue. A personal anecdote that I think exemplifies the problem: I was once double invoiced for custom charges by FedEx. The phone number on the invoice lead to a phone tree where every option simply hung up. Depending on where I looked there were three different email addresses, and an online form; only one provided an automated response and my first three emails were ignored entirely. Their customer support line was unable to connect to that department. At one point I was given an individual's work email and received no response either. Despite this, I continued to receive past due, and final notice letters from them. It took months and hours of my time to resolve a problem they created, had I not persisted, I would have had to deal with collections and credit agencies. Why should we allow companies behave this way without repercussions?
cman1444 3y ago
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.
- ffhhttt 3y ago
  There is a huge difference between subscription services like Xbox game pass and streaming
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > 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.
  - fxtentacle 3y ago
    "You'll own nothing and be happy" It described life in an unnamed city in which the narrator does not own a car, a house, any appliances, or any clothes, and instead relies on shared services for all of his daily needs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_happy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ll_own_nothing_and_be_ha...
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago

Jochim 3y ago

I'd rather we were transitioning towards consumers actually owning their games rather than towards them not being able to run them on their own hardware. We've already seen how this plays out with the proliferation of SAAS and the move to subscription models that leave consumers with nothing if the company goes bust or they stop paying. Companies that grow beyond a certain size are harmful to the economy. The harm to consumers isn't always direct or obvious but it reduces choice and creates a situation where the company wields outsized power over consumers and the state. I mostly like Microsoft but they should be a much smaller and more focused company.

radiKal07 3y ago

you are completely disconnected from reality my guy

raxxorraxor 3y ago

I don't believe that streaming games is in the interest of consumers in the slightest. That said, I don't have a problem with the merger. It won't help consumers and it won't help people working for the studios. That was not the case in any merger in the past. While they have a lot of solid IPs that will generate billions for years to come, I believe these studios have a hard time to innovate. The likelihood that at some point someone will eat their lunch is pretty high. Gaming IPs have a lot of momentum, but there are always new challengers around the corner.

krolden 3y ago

Cloud gaming is only good if the cloud is your computer.

KingMachiavelli 3y ago

Is it this article? https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/06/22/blocking-the-microsoft-activision-deal-would-harm-consumers https://www.economist.com/leaders/2023/06/22/blocking-the-mi... Honestly... IMO that analysis is completely misguided and nearly contradictory. Even if I accept the premise that the merger will (1) increase cloud and game streaming and (2) cloud/streaming games is good for consumers, I would argue it "harms consumers" under the legal anti-competitive and anti-trust arguments. My argument is that achieving premise (1) via a merger is by-definition anti-consumer because it would strengthen cloud/game streaming outside of actual consumer demand. It's not possible or the place for the courts to decide what consumers "want" beyond high level details like cost, and availability, etc. There's no rule preventing Activison from licensing it's games to Microsoft's, Sony's, etc. cloud gaming services. If there was genuine consumer demand for cloud gaming, then Activison is in the perfect position to get the best deal from all/any of the existing cloud gaming providers. > (Article) Subscriptions and streaming have turned the music and television industries upside down in the past couple of decades. Music, TV, and Film streaming all grew out of independent providers. Really it started with rentals which used the "first-sale" doctrine to even exist - it doesn't get much more independent than buying the standalone product and renting it. The fact that TV/Movie streaming is now fragmenting is causing large amounts of pain and cost for consumers not less. Over the past decade only Music streaming has remained simple and cheap - and all of the major providers here are independent of the record companies.