FTC seeks to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard(ftc.gov)
ftc.gov
FTC seeks to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/12/ftc-seeks-block-microsoft-corps-acquisition-activision-blizzard-inc
470 comments
FAANG-level job security doesn't get you much these days...
Continue releasing games on wildly popular IPs. The games need not be good, see for example diablo immortal.
Where will they get the money?
See for example Diablo Immortal.
WoW, 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.
There 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.
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.
Not only immortal but all Diablo games released after D2 LOD
Make NFT Call of Duty skins?
Is 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.
Sorry, I was just being facetious. Yeah, I really hope that's not anybody's actual strategy lol.
De-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.
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.
FIFA 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.
FIFA is Elctronic Arts, not Activision-Blizzard. And EA just did that, no more FIFA beyond FIFA 2023.
> 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.
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.
Your 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.
Overwatch 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.
That being said, I love the game because I lived Overwatch 1.
100% 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.
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.
For 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?
The 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.
I 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.
> “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.
What do you mean by platforms?
The 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.
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.
which doesnt make sense since playstation has withheld more content than any other platform and has more exclusives than microsoft has ever had.
Nothing with as much pull as CoD though. By the numbers it's not even close
And then goes on to mention Starfield, a game that, according to rumors, Sony tried to get an exclusivity deal, Redfall that wasn't even announced nor an existing IP and cloud gaming which only has Nvidia as the other player while Sony forgot that they even had a service like that and only started complaining when Microsoft actually put effort in their service
Ah 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
Also if not Microsoft then a chinese corp will buy Blizz, for example Tencent. But I guess that would be okay
> Ah yeah bust Disney buying up everything was okay?
What has Disney bought up during the current administration?
What has Disney bought up during the current administration?
Merely because one questionable thing happened doesn't mean other questionable things are excused. We don't need to embrace a race to the bottom.
During the Fox acquisition by Disney, the FTC was majority Republican. It is now majority Democrat. Elections matter!
And Ticketmaster merged with Live Nation under the Obama admin. Elections matter!
The 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.
I 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.
The thing is, in the world of gaming, Microsoft buying games studios is making it less of a mononpoly. Sony has tons of solid PS exclusive because of their studios. Microsoft starts to make similar like moves and all of a sudden it's monoploy problem. WTF.
I suppose if you count Windows, Microsoft has captured way more of the market than Sony? Comes down to how the market and what (constitutes a monopoly) is defined though.
What studios has Sony acquired that are in the same ballpark as Activision? They are pretty huge. Are there any? Genuine question.
As huge as Activision. None. But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Studios they have lots of medium size ones.
The Disney buyouts were made under a very different FTC and also a very different political climate. As well as a more naive view on monopolies by many in the regulatory/political sphere.
This move away from the consumer harm standard is recent and the new FTC chair is committed to making sure we go back to the old days of Anti-Trust.
This move away from the consumer harm standard is recent and the new FTC chair is committed to making sure we go back to the old days of Anti-Trust.
Thank goodness. It's nice to see action here.
I'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.
Meanwhile Ticketmaster and Live Nation laughing their assess off
Maybe not for long - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/06/taylor-swift-ticketmaster-fi...
> 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.
> 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.
I misread that as the "Department of Energy" and was wondering if Ticketmaster was about to get nuked.
Do Marianos
Great 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.
Meanwhile 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.
Which one?
Recently it was Bleach for me, not available in Poland for whatever reason.
Piracy is the only option they’re giving you then.
He 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.
Let's not pretend that unethical stealing is the only option.
Let'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.
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.
[deleted]
I mean, I've got a fairly long list of content on that list, some years old at this point.
It's not the only option.. it the only good option.
Another option would be to purchase a VPN to route through a country where it is playable. But if you had to choose between the 2 options of pirating or paying more money to a different "shady" activity... I feel like the choice is pretty clear.
Another option would be to purchase a VPN to route through a country where it is playable. But if you had to choose between the 2 options of pirating or paying more money to a different "shady" activity... I feel like the choice is pretty clear.
I wonder why people believe bypassing copyright law by pretending to be from another country is somehow better than bypassing copyright law by downloading the content.
Both are piracy, but the latter holds the stigmatism, and the former is openly advertised by podcasters and youtubers everywhere.
Both are piracy, but the latter holds the stigmatism, and the former is openly advertised by podcasters and youtubers everywhere.
Why do you think that the parent poster is entitled to watch it? There is clearly the option of not watching it.
For the same reason the IP holder is entitled to a monopoly. The free market doesn't work without competition, and since IP law explicitly gives people monopolies, the only balancing force is piracy.
People in general don't want to pirate, but they will if it's the best option (just look at the often-cited example of Steam). That's the only thing keeping publishers in check. Without it, I'm sure prices for content would be much higher than they are right now.
People in general don't want to pirate, but they will if it's the best option (just look at the often-cited example of Steam). That's the only thing keeping publishers in check. Without it, I'm sure prices for content would be much higher than they are right now.
This is a very silly argument. There are plenty of other entertainment options that are not the anime in question; no one has a right to experience a specific piece of creative content, just because they feel like it and don't like the distribution model. Lots of entitled downvoters on here; I at least applaud you for engaging in discussion.
Should you be able to attend an event without a ticket, just because that venue has a "monopoly" on that evening's entertainment? You're not reducing the enjoyment of others, nor are you decreasing the artist's revenue.
Should you be able to attend an event without a ticket, just because that venue has a "monopoly" on that evening's entertainment? You're not reducing the enjoyment of others, nor are you decreasing the artist's revenue.
> Should you be able to attend an event without a ticket, just because that venue has a "monopoly" on that evening's entertainment? You're not reducing the enjoyment of others, nor are you decreasing the artist's revenue.
This isn't an accurate analogy because the OP has no option to enter the venue at all, even if they want to pay.
> no one has a right to experience a specific piece of creative content
The whole motive behind copyright is that society is entitled to culture. By granting artists a time-limited monopoly, they can be incentivized to create and release more and more content, which makes society's culture richer and more widely available to everyone.
So I'd argue that the status quo OP describes is contrary to the actual objective of copyright itself.
This isn't an accurate analogy because the OP has no option to enter the venue at all, even if they want to pay.
> no one has a right to experience a specific piece of creative content
The whole motive behind copyright is that society is entitled to culture. By granting artists a time-limited monopoly, they can be incentivized to create and release more and more content, which makes society's culture richer and more widely available to everyone.
So I'd argue that the status quo OP describes is contrary to the actual objective of copyright itself.
Venues sell out.
Are you suggesting that if i couldn't get a ticket to a concert i want to see, I am entitled to some kind of compensation?
Are you suggesting that if i couldn't get a ticket to a concert i want to see, I am entitled to some kind of compensation?
Compensation? No.
That wasn't my main argument however. Please read it below in my original response.
That wasn't my main argument however. Please read it below in my original response.
While I'm very much pro-IP, the concept of fair use exists. If the content is available for purchase, then piracy takes from Disney's profits. But if it is not available, and won't be, then pirating it doesn't affect Disney's profits. (There are obviously counter-arguments to this, contingent on the situation.)
This has nothing to do with the concept of "fair use."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use?wprov=sfla1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use?wprov=sfla1
Yes, it does, both indirectly, as fair use is an example of using copyrighted material and this is another one, and directly, because categorizing a use as fair use
involves the commercial impact of the use.
You really ought to read the wikipedia page. Fair use does not allow you to consume copyrighted material. Fair use allows:
>commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship.
>commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship.
I'm not saying it's fair use. It isn't. The premise behind my comment relates to the underlying morality behind fair use, which doesn't involve obedience to the law.
Yo, ho, ho, and a bottle of rum!
It has never been easier to watch content. 123movies has a better UX than prime imo.
Exclusive rights.
Yeah, there is plenty of "content" to watch. The problem is that there tends to be content people want to watch, because word has gotten out that it is high quality, or (in this case) a trailer/ad looked appealing, and having it locked up on zero, maybe one, platforms doesn't really satisfy someone?
Yeah, there is plenty of "content" to watch. The problem is that there tends to be content people want to watch, because word has gotten out that it is high quality, or (in this case) a trailer/ad looked appealing, and having it locked up on zero, maybe one, platforms doesn't really satisfy someone?
123movies has every piece of content you would want. Go ahead and google for it.
Some of us would prefer to not pirate the content.
[deleted]
Eh 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.
I assume the main concern is Call of Duty becoming an Xbox exclusive
Meanwhile 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.
If the current situation sucks then doesn't it makes sense to block moves that would make it suck even more?
Doesn't it? Why not?
I 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.
I 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.
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.
Whatever. At lease Epic didn't make anything. There's a bug difference between getting an exclusive or a timed exclusive because you partially funded a studio over just dumping buckets of money on a game that's basically done to make sure it doesn't end up on Steam for a year. I don't want to reboot or mess with other emulators. Steam works on Linux. Let me buy your game on Steam.
Valve doesn't really do "exclusives" with Steam the way other platforms have exclusives. If a game is only available on Steam, it's not because their was a contract signed or money paid to enforce that. It's because the developer or publisher has decided not to make the game available elsewhere for their own reasons.
[deleted]
Because as the FTC will tell you, exclusives are generally good for competition except for a few circumstances with monopolist companies. They clearly think Microsoft owning Activision would be one of those circumstances.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Microsoft has already committed to releasing Call of Duty on Nintendo platforms and Steam, so that's probably not any part of the concern.
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.
Sounds like the FTC does not trust Microsoft’s assurances.
Sounds like the FTC does not trust Microsoft’s assurances.
For how long?
10 years.
[deleted]
Well I’ve loved the Fallout series and Skyrim, and paid for them several times, but now that MS has bought Bethesda, TES VI will not be n Playstation. I presume this means the next Fallout too. I’ve been Microsoft free (personally) for several years, and I’m not building a PC again just to play these games. I hate this kind of thing, even when it works in my favor (Horizon), and I don’t want this sort of crap to continue to proliferate.
> Unlike the majority of HN I don't hate MS, they have quality stuff as far as gaming goes.
This has not been my experience when playing any game that uses the UWP / Windows store API. I must've sunk 20+ hours into trying to get Forza 7 to start. It would launch and play fine maybe 1/20 times, and then exit to desktop with no error after about 20 minutes of play.
The other 19/20 times it wouldn't start, and the support online was abysmal. Suggestions include rebooting your machine, reinstalling the game (which was an 80GB download), reinstalling the GPU drivers, and I even got desperate enough to attempt a technique that was parroted on many forums as a fix, which is to install and immediately remove a completely unrelated Windows app store game. This worked a few times and then stopped working, or maybe it was just a coincidence. I spent a few hours trying to get my money back from MS and gave up on that too.
I miss the days when you could just run a .exe to start a game - if this is the future of gaming on Windows, then gaming on Linux could actually be a viable competitor.
This has not been my experience when playing any game that uses the UWP / Windows store API. I must've sunk 20+ hours into trying to get Forza 7 to start. It would launch and play fine maybe 1/20 times, and then exit to desktop with no error after about 20 minutes of play.
The other 19/20 times it wouldn't start, and the support online was abysmal. Suggestions include rebooting your machine, reinstalling the game (which was an 80GB download), reinstalling the GPU drivers, and I even got desperate enough to attempt a technique that was parroted on many forums as a fix, which is to install and immediately remove a completely unrelated Windows app store game. This worked a few times and then stopped working, or maybe it was just a coincidence. I spent a few hours trying to get my money back from MS and gave up on that too.
I miss the days when you could just run a .exe to start a game - if this is the future of gaming on Windows, then gaming on Linux could actually be a viable competitor.
This is why, even though I can afford it, I wouldn't get a gaming pc and I have a PS5.
In console it's just turn on and play, otherwise the game won't be available.
I would only use pc for some RTS games (like AoE, civ, and things along those lines) which don't need such huge compute requirements.
I would only use pc for some RTS games (like AoE, civ, and things along those lines) which don't need such huge compute requirements.
I have a Nintendo switch and love it for this. I play it a few times a year at most but (after charging) it just boots directly into Mario or Zelda or whatever game I select. Out of the desk drawer and into a game in under 30 seconds.
I can't get it how Steam can make an app store for Windows that works unlike Microsoft. It's not at all unique, because Dropbox was able to make a cloud storage product that works, unlike Microsoft. It seems like having access to the OS internals is a bug, not a feature.
It is unsolicited advice but I'd suggest that Microsoft get the Windows store working right before it spends billions on a source of games for it that as it is people won't be able to play. (... for that matter, am I the only one who sees links to unwholesome "Youtube shorts" on the Youtube home page that don't actually play? I have the problem both on Windows/Firefox and my iPad)
It is unsolicited advice but I'd suggest that Microsoft get the Windows store working right before it spends billions on a source of games for it that as it is people won't be able to play. (... for that matter, am I the only one who sees links to unwholesome "Youtube shorts" on the Youtube home page that don't actually play? I have the problem both on Windows/Firefox and my iPad)
> I can't get it how Steam can make an app store for Windows that works unlike Microsoft.
The usual cause for something like this is that management is incentivizing for something that isn't quality. Velocity is the normal one that gets people, but there are a few others that occasionally get people (number of open tickets/lack of outrage on social media/etc).
It is, of course, possible that the team is incompetent, but that's usually an easier problem to fix, and if the team has had normal turnover, the odds of them having consistently incompetent ICs for years on end is pretty low.
The usual cause for something like this is that management is incentivizing for something that isn't quality. Velocity is the normal one that gets people, but there are a few others that occasionally get people (number of open tickets/lack of outrage on social media/etc).
It is, of course, possible that the team is incompetent, but that's usually an easier problem to fix, and if the team has had normal turnover, the odds of them having consistently incompetent ICs for years on end is pretty low.
Say what you want but OneDrive/Teams instant collaboration was a game changer when my former company got the licenses. My laptop died and I was back up and running on a new one within the hour. This was a couple years ago, it's table stakes now but it's not like they can't do cloud storage and syncing
I have nothing against MS. I’ve had multiple models of Xbox, for example.
I support this because MS is already huge (Windows, Office, Xbox) and Activision/Blizzard is huge.
There is already way too much centralization. EA owns too much. Honestly there may be some Sony shouldn’t have been allowed to acquire (I don’t keep track on either side).
So MS + Activision is just too centralized for me. If the argument is “we need this to compete with EA” then we should break up EA.
I support this because MS is already huge (Windows, Office, Xbox) and Activision/Blizzard is huge.
There is already way too much centralization. EA owns too much. Honestly there may be some Sony shouldn’t have been allowed to acquire (I don’t keep track on either side).
So MS + Activision is just too centralized for me. If the argument is “we need this to compete with EA” then we should break up EA.
Nor do I hate MS. I have a love-hate relationship with their stack (more on the love side), and of course I don't like their anti-competitive behavior. They've done some great stuff under Satya.
I like to describe them as a many-headed beast; Some are benevolent, others less so.
Open sourcing a lot of stuff has been amazing for the MS ecosystem. But then they pull the Hot Reload move.
Two steps forward, a half step back, seems like.
I like to describe them as a many-headed beast; Some are benevolent, others less so.
Open sourcing a lot of stuff has been amazing for the MS ecosystem. But then they pull the Hot Reload move.
Two steps forward, a half step back, seems like.
What’s wrong with Hot Reload? Didn’t they walk back the Visual Studio only bit?
>Honestly there may be some Sony shouldn’t have been allowed to acquire
Some people have been floating around the idea that Sony could respond by acquiring Square Enix. Not sure if that is actually fiancially viable, but I would much prefer Sony and Microsoft acquire smaller studios (think Playground Games, Bluepoint Games) and leave bigger players like Activision and Square Enix alone.
Some people have been floating around the idea that Sony could respond by acquiring Square Enix. Not sure if that is actually fiancially viable, but I would much prefer Sony and Microsoft acquire smaller studios (think Playground Games, Bluepoint Games) and leave bigger players like Activision and Square Enix alone.
Exactly. I don’t mind “elevating” small studios by acquiring them and giving them resources and capital.
But I don’t like just flat out consolidation of already large companies. I don’t see a benefit (to gamers) in that. Just investors/business people.
But I don’t like just flat out consolidation of already large companies. I don’t see a benefit (to gamers) in that. Just investors/business people.
Sqeenix already sold a number of their franchises and studios to Embracer recently.
> I have nothing against MS.
I do. I've had Microsoft account hacked with no way of recovering it despite still owning the email associated with it. I continuously get email notifications from Microsoft stating that there's suspicious activity on the account but recovery is effectively impossible.
I won't buy anything at all that requires a Microsoft account to use.
I do. I've had Microsoft account hacked with no way of recovering it despite still owning the email associated with it. I continuously get email notifications from Microsoft stating that there's suspicious activity on the account but recovery is effectively impossible.
I won't buy anything at all that requires a Microsoft account to use.
Can you expand on how that’s possible? Don’t the reset emails break you back in…?
I suppose that e-mail is not enough, they probably require a second factor like a phone number.
> Can you expand on how that’s possible?
1. Opened a MSN.net account in early 00's. Fake name/birthday provided as is the norm for the day and only email validation was required at the time.
2. Opened a Skype account in early 00's. Fake name/birthday information provided as is the norm for the day and only email validation was required at the time.
3. Microsoft merged Skype and MSN.net
4. Bought a Surface Pro in early 10's and that required a Microsoft account. Hated it and returned it, but now there's a CC and name associated with the account.
5. Account was hacked in mid 10's. Lost access.
6. Recovery workflow now involves "verifying" questions and answers that were never a part of the sign-up workflow, and secondary workflow involves "verifying" fake name/birthday information that's long since forgotten, or verifying purchases and prices and CC numbers (which have since changed), or verification of email.
7. Verification of email isn't enough because it's not a second factor. Want more verification.
8. MS phone support refuses to help, and brick & mortar staff have no capability to recover accounts
1. Opened a MSN.net account in early 00's. Fake name/birthday provided as is the norm for the day and only email validation was required at the time.
2. Opened a Skype account in early 00's. Fake name/birthday information provided as is the norm for the day and only email validation was required at the time.
3. Microsoft merged Skype and MSN.net
4. Bought a Surface Pro in early 10's and that required a Microsoft account. Hated it and returned it, but now there's a CC and name associated with the account.
5. Account was hacked in mid 10's. Lost access.
6. Recovery workflow now involves "verifying" questions and answers that were never a part of the sign-up workflow, and secondary workflow involves "verifying" fake name/birthday information that's long since forgotten, or verifying purchases and prices and CC numbers (which have since changed), or verification of email.
7. Verification of email isn't enough because it's not a second factor. Want more verification.
8. MS phone support refuses to help, and brick & mortar staff have no capability to recover accounts
I don't know, MS does not have a a lot in games publishers/studio, but Xbox consoles is almost a duopoly with PS
The Nintendo Switch (114m) outsold the Xbox One (51m) , Series S, and Series X (12m together) combined. And both the Playstation and (especially) Xbox suffer in that most of their games are also available on PC (usually much more cheaply).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_video_game_console_genera...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_video_game_console_genera...
There is also Embracer who are not on as many people's radar as they should be considering just how many studies they have been gobbling up. I wish there was a good answer for stopping this ultra-capitalistic consolidization that is going on in the games industry - best we can do is buy from independents but those are often bought up once they get big enough.
Yeah, this basically summarizes my thoughts regarding this issue.
To over-simplify, I foresee two possible outcomes.
1. The merge makes AB worse. That's fine because while I somewhat enjoy their games, they aren't doing anything ground-breaking and their existing catalog of games is good enough for me to keep playing if I ever get the urge for something they've made. And if they fold in a flaming wreckage of nonsense, that's fine, because again, their existing catalog of games is fine as is, and I wouldn't greatly miss future entries.
2. The merge makes AB better. Great! Maybe some of their existing IPs are improved beyond simple incremental improves and maybe even some new IPs that are worth playing come about. I see this is a win for everyone.
I do see the side of "MS has enough money to bully companies like Sony", but the thing is, Sony is still the clear leader in the console gaming space. This means any concession that MS gives out end up feeling like handouts to the market leader, which just feels strange to me.
But at the end of the day, if that means agreements to release titles like Call of Duty on Playstation (is anyone really concerned whether they come out on Nintendo platforms?) that's fine by me as well.
To over-simplify, I foresee two possible outcomes.
1. The merge makes AB worse. That's fine because while I somewhat enjoy their games, they aren't doing anything ground-breaking and their existing catalog of games is good enough for me to keep playing if I ever get the urge for something they've made. And if they fold in a flaming wreckage of nonsense, that's fine, because again, their existing catalog of games is fine as is, and I wouldn't greatly miss future entries.
2. The merge makes AB better. Great! Maybe some of their existing IPs are improved beyond simple incremental improves and maybe even some new IPs that are worth playing come about. I see this is a win for everyone.
I do see the side of "MS has enough money to bully companies like Sony", but the thing is, Sony is still the clear leader in the console gaming space. This means any concession that MS gives out end up feeling like handouts to the market leader, which just feels strange to me.
But at the end of the day, if that means agreements to release titles like Call of Duty on Playstation (is anyone really concerned whether they come out on Nintendo platforms?) that's fine by me as well.
> This means any concession that MS gives out end up feeling like handouts to the market leader, which just feels strange to me.
I don't find this to be the case at all. SONY is market leader in consoles because they've been doing a better job. Microsoft cross-funding their way into a monopoly wouldn't make MS decision making any better, would it?
As an extreme example: Imagine MS buying out all major game studios in 2013 (they certainly have had the money to do it). You -- as the consumer -- would've either been stuck with a console that made every wrong decision, but has every game on it. Or a console made with better decisions but with no games. How is preventing this a handout to the market leader?
I don't find this to be the case at all. SONY is market leader in consoles because they've been doing a better job. Microsoft cross-funding their way into a monopoly wouldn't make MS decision making any better, would it?
As an extreme example: Imagine MS buying out all major game studios in 2013 (they certainly have had the money to do it). You -- as the consumer -- would've either been stuck with a console that made every wrong decision, but has every game on it. Or a console made with better decisions but with no games. How is preventing this a handout to the market leader?
Unless Sony is "doing a better job" solely at selling copies of Call of Duty, then I'm not convinced that this merger is a huge threat to their market position. People aren't buying Sony consoles because of the games put out by AB.
I just don't see this merger moving the needle much on the competition between the two companies.
I just don't see this merger moving the needle much on the competition between the two companies.
You seem to be highly unaware of the CoD bubble. CoD is selling like hotcakes and is definitely the main decider for a sizable amount of people in their console purchase. The purchase would recapture the US market in the next cycle for sure. Even if MS rebooted their 2013 fiasco.
I just don't understand how this merger would be even entertained by the FCC. The only reason MS is lagging behind Sony is because of their own incompetence (outside of Japan). Allowing this much of a cross funding to offset incompetence shouldn't event be on the table.
I just don't understand how this merger would be even entertained by the FCC. The only reason MS is lagging behind Sony is because of their own incompetence (outside of Japan). Allowing this much of a cross funding to offset incompetence shouldn't event be on the table.
> Blizzard on the other hand sucks so much nowadays
It's so disappointing to me that Activision kept Blizzard as part of the name during the merger. Decision makers at Blizzard were replaced with decision makers who Activision liked and now the company is just Activision with Blizzard's IP.
Everyone who made the Blizzard name worth paying attention to was either gone or pushed into a different role by the time Activision ruined their name, but people still say things like "Blizzard sucks" instead of "Activision sucks" (hell, even "Activision Blizzard sucks" would feel better).
I'm don't even think that it's wrong to say "Blizzard sucks"; it just sucks that it's true.
It's so disappointing to me that Activision kept Blizzard as part of the name during the merger. Decision makers at Blizzard were replaced with decision makers who Activision liked and now the company is just Activision with Blizzard's IP.
Everyone who made the Blizzard name worth paying attention to was either gone or pushed into a different role by the time Activision ruined their name, but people still say things like "Blizzard sucks" instead of "Activision sucks" (hell, even "Activision Blizzard sucks" would feel better).
I'm don't even think that it's wrong to say "Blizzard sucks"; it just sucks that it's true.
I don't care how good any one company is at $thing; that doesn't mean they should be allowed to own the entire market for $thing. That's just not healthy for a society or an economy.
There's already way, way, way too much consolidation in industry today (not just "the games industry"; all of industry). What we need to be doing is breaking up many of these megacorporations, and then reversing the burden of proof for mergers & acquisitions: not "we'll stop this if it's proven that it would be harmful," but "we won't allow this unless it's proven to be beneficial", with a fairly high bar.
It just seems so absurd to me to see so many people who trumpet the power of the "free market", but then advocate for this kind of hyper-consolidated situation as if it's remotely like a "free market". Yes, sure, I can buy my $thing from Oppressive Megacorp A, B, or C, all of whom have a huge interest in maintaining the status quo and avoiding meaningful competition.
There's already way, way, way too much consolidation in industry today (not just "the games industry"; all of industry). What we need to be doing is breaking up many of these megacorporations, and then reversing the burden of proof for mergers & acquisitions: not "we'll stop this if it's proven that it would be harmful," but "we won't allow this unless it's proven to be beneficial", with a fairly high bar.
It just seems so absurd to me to see so many people who trumpet the power of the "free market", but then advocate for this kind of hyper-consolidated situation as if it's remotely like a "free market". Yes, sure, I can buy my $thing from Oppressive Megacorp A, B, or C, all of whom have a huge interest in maintaining the status quo and avoiding meaningful competition.
Do you really think that Amazon and Walmart don’t meaningfully compete? What about Ford and GM? Android and iOS?
I think that a duopoly, or other very small number of meaningful participants in a market, is fundamentally much less healthy and much less beneficial to customers than a larger number of smaller competitors, whether or not they have explicitly colluded to partition the market (as, for instance, in the ISP market).
Since you didn’t answer my question we can assume that the answer is “yes they do meaningfully compete” which is good because that’s obviously the case.
There are on the order of 10 video game companies with over a billion usd in revenue. There are 3 distinct console manufacturers (4 if you count the steam deck, 5 if you include PCs). Then there’s the mobile gaming market, which has all the big players plus a bunch of others.
Duopoly’s and small markets goodness or badness is irrelevant in this situation.
There are on the order of 10 video game companies with over a billion usd in revenue. There are 3 distinct console manufacturers (4 if you count the steam deck, 5 if you include PCs). Then there’s the mobile gaming market, which has all the big players plus a bunch of others.
Duopoly’s and small markets goodness or badness is irrelevant in this situation.
It makes me squirm but Overwatch 2, Diablo Immortal, and Wow classic were smash hits all. Blizzard is more profit than ever, entertaining more people than ever.
That said…I agree with you, though I doubt MS would help.
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/overwatch-2-topped-...
https://www.pcgamer.com/diablo-immortal-hits-30-million-play...
https://www.gamespot.com/amp-articles/wow-classics-success-s...
That said…I agree with you, though I doubt MS would help.
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/overwatch-2-topped-...
https://www.pcgamer.com/diablo-immortal-hits-30-million-play...
https://www.gamespot.com/amp-articles/wow-classics-success-s...
I'd probably wait a few more months before declaring Overwatch 2 a success
everyone with multiple accounts will have logged in on each at least once to get the three new heroes
this is over forever now
everyone with multiple accounts will have logged in on each at least once to get the three new heroes
this is over forever now
Has Microsoft ever been successful with acquiring a gaming studio? Last example I can think of is Rare. And they ruined Rare.
I guess Bethesda? Maybe that’s yet to be seen.
They had much success with Bungie and Halo, even though they parted ways. But yes, this was a while ago.
Mojang
Where do you see much MS hatred these days?
Dragonflight is pretty good so far tbh
What did they do with WoW classic?
I 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.
Totally, but also excited to see what ex-blizzard creatives at Frost Giant Studios and their upcoming RTS Stormgate will bring. Happy to see the talent reform elsewhere.
https://playstormgate.com/
https://playstormgate.com/
The track record of "ex-<Popular Game/Company> devs/etc" splitting off for new companies/IPs isn't that compelling to me personally. Lots of games have been sold with that angle, and few that I can remember were able to come even close to the previous titles.
Respawn entertainment (Co founder of infinity ward) has been successful, with Fallen Order and Titanfall 2 both being memorable games.
Obsidian has been arguably less so, but grounded and the outer worlds have both been unique feeling and creative titles in my eyes.
Obsidian has been arguably less so, but grounded and the outer worlds have both been unique feeling and creative titles in my eyes.
The Outer Worlds mostly lacked a compelling main narrative, but it was a pretty fun RPG. I dunno, the soul was a bit missing I think.
That's true, and somewhat related of what I think about nostalgia.
Sometimes it's not that they lost the touch or that they sold themselves. It's just that we're not teenagers anymore, in an old internet cafe playing on LAN with our friends. Even if a similar game is coming back, the entire moment with all its context is not.
Still, I'm happy to see they're still alive and faithful to their roots.
Sometimes it's not that they lost the touch or that they sold themselves. It's just that we're not teenagers anymore, in an old internet cafe playing on LAN with our friends. Even if a similar game is coming back, the entire moment with all its context is not.
Still, I'm happy to see they're still alive and faithful to their roots.
> Lots of games have been sold with that angle, and few that I can remember were able to come even close to the previous titles.
Troika? Obsidian?
Troika? Obsidian?
Outer Worlds just made me sad after New Vegas.
> Lots of games have been sold with that angle, and few that I can remember were able to come even close to the previous titles.
Even revenue for the developer, or in enjoyment for the user? Because Torchlight (ex-Diablo-II ICs) was a humdinger of a D-II sequel in terms of gameplay, but sales? Not so much.
This makes me think that the biggest value that the studio brings to the table for revenue is brand recognition.
IOW, it doesn't matter how good the game is, brand recognition gets you over the line sometimes.
Even revenue for the developer, or in enjoyment for the user? Because Torchlight (ex-Diablo-II ICs) was a humdinger of a D-II sequel in terms of gameplay, but sales? Not so much.
This makes me think that the biggest value that the studio brings to the table for revenue is brand recognition.
IOW, it doesn't matter how good the game is, brand recognition gets you over the line sometimes.
As 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.
Sincerely hope the deal falls through and the company goes bankrupt.
> 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?
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?
I 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.
I've been playing Diablo 1 for about two decades, not every day and not every year, but I assure you it is countless hours. I have not found all the items that would perfect my characters. It takes an extraordinary amount of time to find them. Some items I may never find in all my life. I enjoy playing the game. Some people are willing to play, some pay.
So by 10 years I don't mean playing casually for a decade, it's literally 90,000 hours. And Diablo Immortal is a little different being a PVP game, having good gear doesn't just let you solo dungeons, it means people paying their way into kicking your ass every time.
It's fundamentally "pay to win" - money spent matters more than skill or mechanical mastery. Since it has a PvP mode, this means that if you're not whaling you're just krill for the whales to kill.
To be honest, I thought Diablo Immortal was pretty good if it weren’t for the micro transactions. The fact that it was a free game made certain parts super slow and grindy to incentivize purchases, but if it were a real game you have to buy, I’d have thought it was pretty good. It makes me think the game designers there are still good, they’re just held back by the business people.
Blizzard was done before Activision. Even before the Vivendi deal.
I never got over their shift to cartoon fantasy art style, and how it contaminated fantasy art in general in the 00’s ruined it for me.
Shift... to cartoon fantasy art style? You mean the style of The Lost Vikings, Rock'n'Roll Racing, Warcraft (all of them), and so on? Any games not in that style are outliers.
These elements were present but better balanced. The cartoon aspect for 16-bit games like Lost Vikings is on point. In Warcraft 2 you had a perfect mix of seriousness / grit with humor. Over the top art AND comic/anime style AND polished don't work for me. It's Fantasy, the subject is already silly, humor can be present but everything else has to be serious, it's a fine balance otherwise it devolves into parody.
Another way to put it is that for me it worked while Samwise contributed but was in check.
Edit: Now I'm not blaming them, from a business perspective they had to follow the shifting zeitgeist and it obviously worked, old school D&D/Warhammer/Heavy Metal/... were totally uncool at the time especially for teenage millennials.
Another way to put it is that for me it worked while Samwise contributed but was in check.
Edit: Now I'm not blaming them, from a business perspective they had to follow the shifting zeitgeist and it obviously worked, old school D&D/Warhammer/Heavy Metal/... were totally uncool at the time especially for teenage millennials.
Blizzard and Activision definitely need a very, very thorough house cleaning when it comes to worker mistreatment and sexual harassment.
All I want is Bobby Kotick and his friends on the board gone, so I can think about maybe buying Diablo 4 when it's released.
Diablo 4 is a grindy MMORPG with some Diablo elements, so don't get your hopes up too much
All I've ever really wanted was a modern D2. I like what Beamdog have done with Neverwinter Nights 1, even though they focus more on the backend.
> All I've ever really wanted was a modern D2.
That game exists, and it's called Path of Exile. It is also the poster child for why most of D2 aged really, really, really poorly.
Another take on that same concept is called Last Epoch.
That game exists, and it's called Path of Exile. It is also the poster child for why most of D2 aged really, really, really poorly.
Another take on that same concept is called Last Epoch.
Grim Dawn is an excellent modern take on D2 formula. Single player, no MMORPG nonsense, no microtransactions.
> I like what Beamdog have done with Neverwinter Nights 1
Double the price for minimal fixes? They didn't even bother including fixes for known issues which known workarounds available on the vault like e.g. HotU companions sometimes not using most of their abilites because the AI selects the mount ability as the best available one.
Really, these old games should just be released to the community to maintain them like iD used to do. And if someone like Beamdog wants to profit off such maintenance then they better be able to do so without taking the original down from sale because they know they can't actually compete with vanilla + community patches.
Double the price for minimal fixes? They didn't even bother including fixes for known issues which known workarounds available on the vault like e.g. HotU companions sometimes not using most of their abilites because the AI selects the mount ability as the best available one.
Really, these old games should just be released to the community to maintain them like iD used to do. And if someone like Beamdog wants to profit off such maintenance then they better be able to do so without taking the original down from sale because they know they can't actually compete with vanilla + community patches.
Pretty much. They're responsible for an employee committing suicide. The Microsoft acquisition was the last hope of getting rid of them. So much for that.
[deleted]
All of the people responsible for the Blizzard seal of quality are long gone. They are Blizzard in name only.
Overwatch launched in 2016 to critical and commercial acclaim. I would say the opposite, it's in the last few years that Blizzard seemed to really go off the rails.
I think Overwatch was a sign of things to come. The loot box monetization, the focus on competitive play to the detriment of other elements, and the very rigid structure of the game (can't choose map, role queue) all felt like downgrades from Blizzard's previous efforts. At least the gameplay was good for a while.
Overwatch was the first Blizzard game that I liked less and less the more they patched it.
Overwatch was the first Blizzard game that I liked less and less the more they patched it.
Overwatch has had prominent open queue, arcade, and custom game options for a long time now, and with Overwatch 2 they've removed loot boxes.
Instead of lootboxes, we have $/time locked heroes. :(
It's frankly pretty insane to me that heros are gated behind a paywall in a competitive game mode. Is this the first pay to win competitive game?
Hasn't League of Legends been doing this for over a decade?
LoL you pick your hero at the start
Overwatch is all about swapping heroes during the game
Blizzard even incentivised swapping heroes more in Overwatch 2 (30% ult charge retained, vs. 0 in Overwatch 1)
Overwatch is all about swapping heroes during the game
Blizzard even incentivised swapping heroes more in Overwatch 2 (30% ult charge retained, vs. 0 in Overwatch 1)
Yeah I refuse to buy the battle pass on principle. I would have probably bought them if it were just cosmetics.
As someone who grew up paying £25-60 for a brand new game, I find it pretty insane that we've been trained to want games for free despite it costing millions to develop and run dedicated servers for millions of players.
I tried out Overwatch 2, despite all the negative press it is fun and sweaty. I had plenty of fun despite not playing as Kiriko and I'm sure I could easily derive 10s if not 100s of hours before feeling a need to unlock Kiriko.
If a game is taking so much of your time and you have a job, why isn't it ok to just pay a bit to unlock a hero?
I'd take these kinds of monetisation over destiny 2 which didn't even have p2w or clash royale (before season pass)
I tried out Overwatch 2, despite all the negative press it is fun and sweaty. I had plenty of fun despite not playing as Kiriko and I'm sure I could easily derive 10s if not 100s of hours before feeling a need to unlock Kiriko.
If a game is taking so much of your time and you have a job, why isn't it ok to just pay a bit to unlock a hero?
I'd take these kinds of monetisation over destiny 2 which didn't even have p2w or clash royale (before season pass)
I think the only real argument I have here is that in a competitive game mode, all heros should be available.
It's just odd to think that a certain part of the meta is paywalled. It really messes with the sense of competitive integrity.
Normally I'd be fine with a battlepass, but I refuse to pay activision any money out of principle.
It's just odd to think that a certain part of the meta is paywalled. It really messes with the sense of competitive integrity.
Normally I'd be fine with a battlepass, but I refuse to pay activision any money out of principle.
I'm not convinced the acquisition was responsible. The problem I've perceived (with my very limited wisdom on the topic) is that once they made it huge with World of Warcraft, shipping a "pay-once + expansions" product is just such a financial footnote that it's seen as a distraction.
I wonder if that's why the "Real Money Auction House" from Diablo 3 existed.
I wonder if that's why the "Real Money Auction House" from Diablo 3 existed.
WoW was too big of a cash cow for too long, and sucked the oxygen out of the room at Blizzard; everyone who was involved with making non-WoW games left.
How can that be true if Blizz still had multiple non-WoW games, including new releases like Overwatch 2 and upcoming Diablo 4?
> but I do feel as if Blizzard has been making one poor decision after another ever since the acquisition in 2008
"Gamers" might believe this but do the stakeholders actually believe that? The company is still printing money. [1]
[1] https://gamerant.com/diablo-immortal-made-300-million-dollar....
"Gamers" might believe this but do the stakeholders actually believe that? The company is still printing money. [1]
[1] https://gamerant.com/diablo-immortal-made-300-million-dollar....
$300M compared to WoW printing $7B per year in profit in its heyday is almost a rounding error.
To put things into perspective - in its heyday - WoW was half as profitable as Tesla is now...
It's hard to catch lightning in a bottle twice.
They made WoW. It was insanely profitable. Their valuation soared. They sold. They declined.
It's hard to say if its reversion to the mean or the Activision acquisition - but it's hard to argue Blizzard hasn't declined by every metric.
To put things into perspective - in its heyday - WoW was half as profitable as Tesla is now...
It's hard to catch lightning in a bottle twice.
They made WoW. It was insanely profitable. Their valuation soared. They sold. They declined.
It's hard to say if its reversion to the mean or the Activision acquisition - but it's hard to argue Blizzard hasn't declined by every metric.
Are you really saying a mobile game earning 300M in roughly 4 months is bad?
That’s earnings not profit.
Considering the cost to create and amount of reputation damage it caused, YES. Diablo immortal was a massive failure.
Considering the cost to create and amount of reputation damage it caused, YES. Diablo immortal was a massive failure.
What percentage of that 300M do you believe went to cost?
According to the article they generated roughly the same amount of revenue in 4 months as the previous record breaking game did in an entire year. I wish I had that kind of reputation damage.
According to the article they generated roughly the same amount of revenue in 4 months as the previous record breaking game did in an entire year. I wish I had that kind of reputation damage.
Mobile games live and die by aggressive marketing. With conversion ratio in the single digit, it's not uncommon for half of their operating costs to be advertising. And then you add the actual housekeeping and R&D on top of that...
> Mobile games live and die by aggressive marketing.
That is a good point, the amount of raid shadow legends adverts on the internet have become a meme at this point. I haven't seen any ads for Immortals here in the US and the financial report doesn't break down marketing spend by property.
That is a good point, the amount of raid shadow legends adverts on the internet have become a meme at this point. I haven't seen any ads for Immortals here in the US and the financial report doesn't break down marketing spend by property.
I miss old blizzard too, but it was a massive success. It makes tons of money
It also gave us SusanExpress and gold farming. Heaven help us.
Not sure if you are referencing WoW, Diablo Immortal, or Blizzard in general, but gold farming has been around a while.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_farming#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_farming#History
Definitely. Talking about WoW in particular. It's less lucrative now, but they were everywhere a decade+ back. Burning Crusade to Lich King era. Spelling out the names of their websites with orchestrated corpse die-offs in big cities like Stormwind and Ogrimmar.
How much did they spend in development and advertising before that 4 month period and how quickly are those earnings dropping?
That’s the calculation you need to look at, not earnings as if expenses prior to release was 0$.
That’s the calculation you need to look at, not earnings as if expenses prior to release was 0$.
I'm saying a 1-time $300M revenue compared to $14B in revenue per year for ~8 straight years is not really that significant.
I am saying comparing a mobile only game to a MMORPG back when gamers were willing to pay to play MMOs is misleading. Which MMOs are making 14B in yearly revenue in today's entertainment market?
According to the article I linked Immortal generated roughly the same amount of revenue in 4 months as Raid Shadow Legends (the previous record holder) did in their best year. That is a domination of that gaming niche.
According to the article I linked Immortal generated roughly the same amount of revenue in 4 months as Raid Shadow Legends (the previous record holder) did in their best year. That is a domination of that gaming niche.
Yeah, cashing in on your reputation is bad. Short-term thinking like this is killing every Blizzard franchise.
> WoW printing $7B per year in profit
Do you have a source on this $7B a year profit figure? I've tried to find it and can't find anything even close to $7B revenue let alone profit going back to 1994.
Do you have a source on this $7B a year profit figure? I've tried to find it and can't find anything even close to $7B revenue let alone profit going back to 1994.
As far as I can tell, they're way off the mark. This thread [1] estimates WoW at around $1b in revenue.
Also fyi, WoW was originally released in 2004, not 1994.
[1] https://www.quora.com/How-much-revenue-does-World-of-Warcraf...
Also fyi, WoW was originally released in 2004, not 1994.
[1] https://www.quora.com/How-much-revenue-does-World-of-Warcraf...
$7b seems wrong. That would require about 40 million subscribers each paying $15 a month. Peak subscribers was 12 million and many would be paying for slightly cheaper long term subs.
I don't know what the true numbers are, but didn't they also sell the game and expansions for like $40-60 on top of the subscription?
Plus they sell in game services, cosmetics, and game time tokens.
They didn't do that much much at the peak of WoW. There were some pets you got by buying the collector's edition of the game but that was it. No paid mounts, no server transfers, no level boosts.
The paid stuff was a monetization tactic after the decline.
The paid stuff was a monetization tactic after the decline.
I hate that this is true.
So many fun franchises are basically dead because they aren't nearly as profitable as a freemium game and selling digital garbage. Single player FPS is basically dead. RTSes are also effectively dead. The only place you'll find such things is from indy devs and they don't have anywhere near the budget to make something as good as what we used to get :(.
So many fun franchises are basically dead because they aren't nearly as profitable as a freemium game and selling digital garbage. Single player FPS is basically dead. RTSes are also effectively dead. The only place you'll find such things is from indy devs and they don't have anywhere near the budget to make something as good as what we used to get :(.
RTS is dead because sc2/aoe2 are unbeatable. There's just nowhere else to go with the genre.
That's like saying FPS are dead because CS: Go was the pinnacle of the genre.
There could always be a sc3 or aoe18 (or whatever). There are infinite areas to explore.
There could always be a sc3 or aoe18 (or whatever). There are infinite areas to explore.
There was a new AoE game but it’s struggling to compete with AoE2. It’s like trying to release a chess 2. People question why they would spend money to buy the new one when they still have the old one.
People are largely still completely satisfied with what they have now.
People are largely still completely satisfied with what they have now.
AoE4 is actually pretty good too. The change to make walls only destroyable by siege weapons changes up the dynamics in an interesting way.
In relation to RTS games, I think it's a combination of people are largely satisfied with what we have now combined with the fact that MOBAs, FPS, and RTS are probably more appealing to the average gamer.
That being said AoE2 is an awesome game :)
That being said AoE2 is an awesome game :)
FPSes are dead because Epic abandoned their remake of UT for the crapware that is Fortnite.
I refuse to play Fortnite because of this, UT is the perfect shooter franchise. It’s not like Epic doesn’t have the money to do both.
Company of heroes is alive and well, is getting version 3 and does not give you a degenerative clicking disease
Give it a chance before saying such fatalistic statements. Play some lesser known ones. I mean this is a site that found it's roots in startups, and they're are all about being the upstart and being the hope for something better.
RTS is dead because the moment 99% of players play online they get immediately destroyed: it's an unforgiving genre with a massive amount to learn.
RTS newbies get immediately destroyed because RTSes are mostly dead, meaning that all online players have been playing it for decades and know a lot. An RTS with a steady influx of new players and matchmaking would work just fine, if anyone were to get one going.
Does SC2 do rank based matchmaking?
It does (and at least when it came out) it was relatively decent.
The problem occurs when the game has been out long enough that all the active players are leagues ahead of a new player; either they wait forever for a match or get steamrolled.
The problem occurs when the game has been out long enough that all the active players are leagues ahead of a new player; either they wait forever for a match or get steamrolled.
There's plenty of people playing SC2 online at ~every skill level, right now. Queue times are not long at all.
The main problem is that it's a 12 year-old game, that's been largely abandoned by the developer. The other main problem is that unlike a skill-based MOBA, you can't blame anyone else for your losses. The third main problem is that the game is incredibly stressful, demands 100% of your attention, and the smallest mistake can lose the game for you.
The main problem is that it's a 12 year-old game, that's been largely abandoned by the developer. The other main problem is that unlike a skill-based MOBA, you can't blame anyone else for your losses. The third main problem is that the game is incredibly stressful, demands 100% of your attention, and the smallest mistake can lose the game for you.
This doesn't invalidate your point, but it's worth noting that SC2 had a significant balance patch released yesterday.
The patch was put on the Player Test Realm (PTR), which is almost like an open beta. I wouldn't say that it was "released", more like pushed to staging or open beta.
Sure, and it's had a minor, but excellent balance patch earlier in the year, but it's also been more-or-less abandoned for a few years, and is quite clearly not being actively developed.
>The main problem is that it's a 12 year-old game, that's been largely abandoned by the developer
my brother in Christ, you got it backwards - being abandoned is the biggest blessing an old Blizzard game can receive.
my brother in Christ, you got it backwards - being abandoned is the biggest blessing an old Blizzard game can receive.
Can you imagine a modern remake with up to date blizzard strategies?
They'd probably add commander level and equipable commander items which grant buffs to your units. You'd have a chance of getting one item each time you win a pvp fight and you can increase the quality/rarity of the drop by using cash shop items. Oh, and the rare items might require a higher commander level... Obviously you'd also be able to buy temporary buffs to your XP gain, so you can equip them sooner.
They could maybe even focus more on group pvp (i.e. 4vs4) so the whales can carry scrubs to wins. That would give them a chance of loot even if they're just there to be farmed and will make them properly fawn over the mighty whales that let them gain their pointless upgrades.
Perfect whale farm.
They'd probably add commander level and equipable commander items which grant buffs to your units. You'd have a chance of getting one item each time you win a pvp fight and you can increase the quality/rarity of the drop by using cash shop items. Oh, and the rare items might require a higher commander level... Obviously you'd also be able to buy temporary buffs to your XP gain, so you can equip them sooner.
They could maybe even focus more on group pvp (i.e. 4vs4) so the whales can carry scrubs to wins. That would give them a chance of loot even if they're just there to be farmed and will make them properly fawn over the mighty whales that let them gain their pointless upgrades.
Perfect whale farm.
Back when I played it, there was a 50 game skill test for new players which determined which of the major rank pools you were placed in.
Those first 50 games were crazy because you were matched randomly with other new and established players, so sometimes you would play someone really good who would steamroll you in the first 5 minutes, and sometimes you got someone who had at most played the scripted campaigns against the AI and thought they could sit there for the first 30 minutes slowly building up an army.
It was actually pretty fun not knowing which way it would go, and whenever we matched with newbies my partner and I got to experiment with a bunch of different strategies that would never work in a real game.
Those first 50 games were crazy because you were matched randomly with other new and established players, so sometimes you would play someone really good who would steamroll you in the first 5 minutes, and sometimes you got someone who had at most played the scripted campaigns against the AI and thought they could sit there for the first 30 minutes slowly building up an army.
It was actually pretty fun not knowing which way it would go, and whenever we matched with newbies my partner and I got to experiment with a bunch of different strategies that would never work in a real game.
> played the scripted campaigns against the AI and thought they could sit there for the first 30 minutes slowly building up an army.
This right here is my fundamental problem with multiplayer RTS games. The fun I get out of them is in the slow burn long buildup, but other players always find ways to optimize the early game so they win fast and never actually get to the fun part where everyone has massive bases lobbing nukes at eachother. The fun way to play is not the optimal way to play.
It's now been about 10 years since I've even bothered trying an RTS online.
This right here is my fundamental problem with multiplayer RTS games. The fun I get out of them is in the slow burn long buildup, but other players always find ways to optimize the early game so they win fast and never actually get to the fun part where everyone has massive bases lobbing nukes at eachother. The fun way to play is not the optimal way to play.
It's now been about 10 years since I've even bothered trying an RTS online.
Yeah I've felt the same way at times, especially when the armor/weapon types make it very rock paper scissors. It wasn't as blatant in the original StarCraft, but WarCraft 3 and StarCraft 2 seemed to go hard into counters against certain types of units, so someone who either scouts a bit better than you do or picks an army composition that happens to perfectly counter yours will mop the floor with you.
My partner and I had way more fun in those early games when we could stretch it out to 30-60 minutes sometimes. Once you're playing against ranked people who are there to win it's just a mad rush to the first or second tech tier.
My partner and I had way more fun in those early games when we could stretch it out to 30-60 minutes sometimes. Once you're playing against ranked people who are there to win it's just a mad rush to the first or second tech tier.
> It wasn't as blatant in the original StarCraft
It was pretty much the same as SC2, they just never told you in the UI. e.g. Dragoons do half damage to mutalisks. Yamato cannons don’t kill zealots.
It was pretty much the same as SC2, they just never told you in the UI. e.g. Dragoons do half damage to mutalisks. Yamato cannons don’t kill zealots.
Yeah, I was aware of the different armor types in SC1, but I thought they turned it up to 11 in SC2. Maybe they brought it down to the first 2 tiers of units? It didn't feel like armor types really came into play as early in the game. The impression I got was that you could get away with massing a single type of unit much more easily in SC1.
There's a game mode in AoE2DE where everyone's behind strong walls at the start. It takes a while to be able to bring them down. So you get to turtle for a while. A game mode like this is what you'd like to play.
I don't mean to be rude (I'm a very bad Starcraft II enthusiast) but most people who complain about this problem seem to want to play a solo game for 30 minutes and then eventually meet the other player in the field of battle at the half-hour mark. That's an obvious no-go, you can't ignore 90% of the game and expect to have fun.
The way to beat players who play strong openers is to play a strong opener yourself, but not necessarily all-in aggressive. If you want to get to the late game you enjoy you must get better at the early game. Harass the other guy early, scout their build, make sure you're building counters to what the other player is playing. Defend well. Deny their economy here and there. Inevitably crush them with nukes and capital ships after 30 minutes of solid fundamentals.
(Starcraft is still a lot of fun and I'd encourage you to get back in to RTS playing)
The way to beat players who play strong openers is to play a strong opener yourself, but not necessarily all-in aggressive. If you want to get to the late game you enjoy you must get better at the early game. Harass the other guy early, scout their build, make sure you're building counters to what the other player is playing. Defend well. Deny their economy here and there. Inevitably crush them with nukes and capital ships after 30 minutes of solid fundamentals.
(Starcraft is still a lot of fun and I'd encourage you to get back in to RTS playing)
> you can't ignore 90% of the game and expect to have fun.
I think maybe what you meant to say was "... and expect to _win_"
Plenty of people have fun turtling (:
This is one thing I liked about Total Annihilation — defense tech was relatively strong, so some amount of turtling and racing to get high tech artillery (eg) was a viable approach.
I think maybe what you meant to say was "... and expect to _win_"
Plenty of people have fun turtling (:
This is one thing I liked about Total Annihilation — defense tech was relatively strong, so some amount of turtling and racing to get high tech artillery (eg) was a viable approach.
There's plenty of turtling for Terran and Protoss in SC2. Defense tech like cannons, planetarys, shield batteries, and bunkers help. It's definitely not fool proof but is classically something people struggle against.
I think a larger issue is that there's like 3-5 games to get ranked and then a bit more to get really ranked properly. And by SC2 design the early game is resource constrained so decisions are important and even with the right decisions execution is hard.
I think a larger issue is that there's like 3-5 games to get ranked and then a bit more to get really ranked properly. And by SC2 design the early game is resource constrained so decisions are important and even with the right decisions execution is hard.
Try playing Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance Forever - it's a Total Annihilation sequel that's now community supported. It's got a decent AI and an active community of all levels. It's on Steam and often goes on sale.
Watch a few games on Youtube.
Watch a few games on Youtube.
Well, honestly both! SC2 in particular is a game of rock-paper-scissors, you must know what your opponent is building in order to stay alive. If you turtle blindly against a half-decent player you'll get eaten alive.
I used to play Age of Empires in treaty mode. You had XX minutes where you couldn't attack one another so just focused super hard on macro. Utter chaos when the treaty period ended as everyone had max size armies. Lagged the hell out of my computer. Good times
It was a fairly popular variant of the game too, never had trouble finding matches
It was a fairly popular variant of the game too, never had trouble finding matches
It's more like 10 or 15 games before your MMR is pretty accurate.
RTS is dead because it's a better overall decision to make a MOBA instead.
They're less niche and more fun to watch as e-sports for the casual player.
RTS streams are downright boring if you're not actively competing at ranked matches.
They're less niche and more fun to watch as e-sports for the casual player.
RTS streams are downright boring if you're not actively competing at ranked matches.
MOBAs you can just watch. RTS you often need a good commenter or a really decent strategic understanding of the game.
Personally, I think RTSs are way easier to watch. Its easier to understand what is going on at a base level (i.e. build an army and beat the other side).
MOBAs seem super confusing if you dont play. Its 30 minutes of nothing happening, and then like 15 seconds of people getting really excited and then the game is over.
MOBAs seem super confusing if you dont play. Its 30 minutes of nothing happening, and then like 15 seconds of people getting really excited and then the game is over.
Yeah, I always found watching MOBAs boring but I never really played them; at least RTS I knew roughly what they were doing and doing better than I could.
I disagree that you can “just watch” MOBAs. I don’t play any MOBAs, but I will occasionally watch them. If I don’t have a commentator guiding me along to tell me what is happening (to some degree) then it makes no sense to me.
With MOBAs you can blame your teammates when you lose. RTSs are mostly played 1v1.
> RTS streams are downright boring if you're not actively competing at ranked matches.
I disagree. A lot of Korean viewers never even touched the ranked online multiplayer when BW was mainstream esports. Heck even my dad watched it.
I disagree. A lot of Korean viewers never even touched the ranked online multiplayer when BW was mainstream esports. Heck even my dad watched it.
That's a factor. But the bigger factor is it's harder to freemium an RTS without destroying the game.
The fun of RTSes is the learning curve, but throw in a bunch of "you can buy a special unit for $10" and all the sudden the game balancing is destroyed. That leaves you with inconsequential things like avatar skins to sell and very few people would buy those.
Couple that with the fact that new players aren't likely to spend hours online playing the game (because they get destroyed) and you've got a major problem.
For me, the fun of RTSes was in single player games and lan parties.
The fun of RTSes is the learning curve, but throw in a bunch of "you can buy a special unit for $10" and all the sudden the game balancing is destroyed. That leaves you with inconsequential things like avatar skins to sell and very few people would buy those.
Couple that with the fact that new players aren't likely to spend hours online playing the game (because they get destroyed) and you've got a major problem.
For me, the fun of RTSes was in single player games and lan parties.
Valve made millions off of team fortress hats that made your hitbox larger. I don't see why so many people think cosmetics in games can't sell.
> I don't see why so many people think cosmetics in games can't sell.
Big difference between the cosmetics for an FPS and RTS. There aren't a lot of cosmetic options you could come up in an RTS.
Big difference between the cosmetics for an FPS and RTS. There aren't a lot of cosmetic options you could come up in an RTS.
I can think of a lot of different ones...
This was after they sold the game at a fair price for many many years. The "freemium" play was I imagine, in part taken because sales flatlined.
I remember the transition. I kinda hated it, to be honest. Not because of the drops (they were introducing hats and loot well before this) but because the influx of players were...low quality
I remember the transition. I kinda hated it, to be honest. Not because of the drops (they were introducing hats and loot well before this) but because the influx of players were...low quality
A large playerbase and good matchmaking could solve this. Ironically the best way for any game to get a large enough playerbase for fair matchmaking and low queue times is to go free-to-play.
this wasn't always a problem though. Warcraft 3 and both Starcraft games had a large and diverse audience for a long time. From competitive players to people who enjoyed the story despite the fact that they're quite difficult multiplayer games.
Elden Ring and the Souls games are difficult and even to a point intentionally alienating but have had massive success including in the mainstream.
I don't know what it is but I feel there's something else going on with the rapid decline of RTS besides the difficulty.
Elden Ring and the Souls games are difficult and even to a point intentionally alienating but have had massive success including in the mainstream.
I don't know what it is but I feel there's something else going on with the rapid decline of RTS besides the difficulty.
Elden ring and Horizon Zero Dawn are amazing solo player games. I don’t wanna play pvp multiplayer. I like Co-Op multiplayer with my buddies. Elden Ring with full game co-op would be amazing. I’d buy all the DLC they could release in a heartbeat.
Starcraft 2 is the only game the thought of queueing up for a 1v1 game gets my heartrate up (ladder anxiety). It's not so much the winning or losing, but the fact that games are just 20+ minutes of full-tilt. Whether you're winning or losing, there's zero downtime because there's always something that needs to be done.
Other competitive games like CS/Valorant gives you downtime in between rounds and when you die. Similarly with MOBAs, travel time in between your base and lane, when you die. Even fighting games, when you get a hit in, it's back to muscle memory for your bread and butter combo, and rounds are much shorter.
Other competitive games like CS/Valorant gives you downtime in between rounds and when you die. Similarly with MOBAs, travel time in between your base and lane, when you die. Even fighting games, when you get a hit in, it's back to muscle memory for your bread and butter combo, and rounds are much shorter.
On an unrelated note, I think this lack of downtime is partly responsible for StarCraft pros suffering as much from RSI. There's no clear downtime while playing and the hands have to be going at speed the entire time.
[deleted]
Are all RTS players interested in online play? I like RTSs, played a certain number, but I've never played online. But RTS devs focusing a lot of their efforts on multiplayers, effort that are going to be wasted on a good portion of the potential market who's just not into MP and is never going to touch the online mode.
> I like RTSs, played a certain number, but I've never played online.
I realized I wrote a mistake: I did play a handful of MP matches of World in Conflict after finishing the (very enjoyable) single-player campaign. It was fun, but not as much as the single player portion; and I never invested enough time for it to be fun.
I realized I wrote a mistake: I did play a handful of MP matches of World in Conflict after finishing the (very enjoyable) single-player campaign. It was fun, but not as much as the single player portion; and I never invested enough time for it to be fun.
I'd love to play an RTS that was APM capped somehow. Maybe in a tiered fashion. As it stands the design of SC2 style RTS is just insanely stressful.
I could see something like SC2 being fun with 2-3 people playing 1 player's role at a time. 1 person on the econ, 2 people on the army. Or much better AI that you can override selectively, so if you want to handle the fighting you can, or if you want to handke the econ you can.
I could see something like SC2 being fun with 2-3 people playing 1 player's role at a time. 1 person on the econ, 2 people on the army. Or much better AI that you can override selectively, so if you want to handle the fighting you can, or if you want to handke the econ you can.
You should check out Tooth and Tail! Not sure if the online scene is still going on but it has a unique take on RTS that effectively caps APM.
> unforgiving genre with a massive amount to learn.
This also describes chess, yet that has a significant online presence.
This also describes chess, yet that has a significant online presence.
Fighting games are also driven to a niche genre due to the amount of "labbing" (training mode to build combos into your muscle memory) is required.
story games are still flourishing, but as console exclusives like Horizon zero dawn, god of war and (to some degree) Halo.
Luckily, most of the time you just to have wait about a year to get them on PC, often for a cheaper price too.
Also single player FPS games still exist, just not standalone as they used to.
Luckily, most of the time you just to have wait about a year to get them on PC, often for a cheaper price too.
Also single player FPS games still exist, just not standalone as they used to.
Ports will always be hindered by having been designed around a different interface (and sometimes performance available) first.
You can see this well in comparing Crysis 1 with 2 & 3.
You can see this well in comparing Crysis 1 with 2 & 3.
Just buy a controller? They're pretty cheap and the superior way to play many games. Also IMO it's more relaxing to sit back with a controller, kb&m I find is more high-intensity.
Many games, yes (I do use them for platformers and the like), FPSes - hell no !
This is not just about gamepad console => m&k PC, by the way.
This is not just about gamepad console => m&k PC, by the way.
Yup, many ported games suffer a lot in terms of optimization, especially when they outsource to other smaller studios to do the job for them.
But its certainly better than not having story games at all. Sony's story games are really really good, and they finally realized that releasing on PC is a win-win for everyone, more money for Sony, more games for PC, because most of the time no one wants to switch from PC to PlayStation
But its certainly better than not having story games at all. Sony's story games are really really good, and they finally realized that releasing on PC is a win-win for everyone, more money for Sony, more games for PC, because most of the time no one wants to switch from PC to PlayStation
How is RTS dead? There are new ones coming out all the time, and there are studios such as Paradox that are exclusively on RTS games.
Only if you just want to play singleplayer. If you're into multiplayer and not already an expert at Starcraft or AoE2 then good luck finding games around your skill level.
I have not played StarCraft in a long time so can't speak for that, but ranked AoE2 games are still being played with players of all skill levels.
When people speak of RTS games, they are actually referring to StarCraft-like real time tactic simulators with optional unit production and resource gathering components. The titles developed by Paradox may not be turn based, but they have more common with the other 4X games like Civilization.
I also don't think RTS is dead but the category has been stale for some time. I grew up playing Age of Empires 2, and the game still has a healthy player base with regular new content being added. However compared to the turn of the century the pace of innovation has definitely slowed down.
I also don't think RTS is dead but the category has been stale for some time. I grew up playing Age of Empires 2, and the game still has a healthy player base with regular new content being added. However compared to the turn of the century the pace of innovation has definitely slowed down.
Aside from maybe Company of Heroes 3, what RTS games have came out anytime recently at all? I want some mid-to-late 90s style RTS games (C&C, AoE, TA, War2, SC, SC2) where you collect resources, build and expand bases, and wage war on your enemies.
I am not interested in 4X games.
I am not interested in 4X games.
Supreme Commander: Forged Alliances has a significant community with FA Forever. (https://www.faforever.com/) It reworked all the stock solo missions with updated units and co-op. There are survival modes, phantom modes. There is a reasonable community online for ladder or team vs team play. In a week or so, the SupCom:FA game should be a couple bucks when the steam sales spin up. Well worth your time one remembers Total Annihilation fondly.
I don’t understand why Ashes of the singularity didn’t take off, that game rules.
AoE4 is a refinement of AoE2. Frostgiant is planning to release a beta of the Starcraft spiritual successor next summer. Immortal: Gates of Pyre is in alpha
Paradox is making turn-based 4X games that's not what people think when you say Real-Time Strategy.
None of Paradox' games are turn based, they're real time (but pausable). Their own description for the genre is "grand strategy", which is IMO between what is classically understood as "RTS" and "4X".
Classically understood in video gaming context, the terms "RTS" and "4X" are pretty much mutually exclusive, even though some 4X titles are real-time, as you've noted.
That wasn't my understanding, and Wikipedia disagrees with you:
> 4X (abbreviation of Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) is a subgenre of strategy-based computer and board games, and include both turn-based and real-time strategy titles.
> 4X (abbreviation of Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) is a subgenre of strategy-based computer and board games, and include both turn-based and real-time strategy titles.
Well, technically speaking all those grand stategy games by paradox have turns - one month in EU4. Every player queues up actions in between turns, but they are doing it at the same time. IMO if we're being pedantic it's neither and is something in between skewed towards turn-based.
It's nothing like "pure" RTS like starcraft where everything is actually real time. Their 4X games have: speed control, pause, turns (days and months, depending on a game and action). If you remove ability make turns simulatinusly and make a single turn into a day - not much will change in gameplay other than it will take longer.
It's nothing like "pure" RTS like starcraft where everything is actually real time. Their 4X games have: speed control, pause, turns (days and months, depending on a game and action). If you remove ability make turns simulatinusly and make a single turn into a day - not much will change in gameplay other than it will take longer.
You don't 'queue up' actions in EU4 or any other Paradox grand strategy - you indicate something has to happen (start building something or move a formation somewhere) and it start happening immediately, in real time. The day/month/year doesn't serve any practical purpose outside of orientation for the end user. Nothing happens at the end of the day/month/year except for actions initiated earlier who's end happens to coincide.
The past ten years have been good for single player FPS games though, I don’t know how anyone could think the genre is dead.
New Wolfenstein and Doom games, yearly call of duty, halo infinite, Titanfall 2, half life alyx, super hot, metro exodus, black mesa, destiny 2, deep rock galactic, the list goes on.
New Wolfenstein and Doom games, yearly call of duty, halo infinite, Titanfall 2, half life alyx, super hot, metro exodus, black mesa, destiny 2, deep rock galactic, the list goes on.
I just... what you define as fun isn't apparently what others define as such, at least when it comes to voting with their dollars.
I can't understand folks who don't understand this concept. You are not the only opinion in this world, and the media and critics are incentivized to create drama.
Doom Eternal came out in 2020, and LoL is one of the most popular games of all time. SC2 just released a huge patch that revamped a lot of balance issues that had cropped up over the past decade...
Gaming has never been more diverse and well funded. It's wild to me that you see the huge selection you've got available to you and could possibly believe we're in anything but the best gaming era of all time right now.
I can't understand folks who don't understand this concept. You are not the only opinion in this world, and the media and critics are incentivized to create drama.
Doom Eternal came out in 2020, and LoL is one of the most popular games of all time. SC2 just released a huge patch that revamped a lot of balance issues that had cropped up over the past decade...
Gaming has never been more diverse and well funded. It's wild to me that you see the huge selection you've got available to you and could possibly believe we're in anything but the best gaming era of all time right now.
People vote with their dollars against their own best interest all the time - typical examples include narcotics (don't take that comparison for more than I meant it to be, it's just an example of how people buy "fun stuff" that they objectively should not) and in-app purchases in cheesy mobile games. Profit motive can only guide profit seeking companies to serve people's happiness to the extent that people can exert self control, and that doesn't work very well.
You are confusing happiness with something else. The problem of language dominates these conversations, and by not being careful you risk being refuted by Plato's Socrates 2500 years ago in the Meno among other things.
You could substitute almost any definition of happiness in my comment and the argument would still work.
I don't remember anything Plato said refuting what the GP said.
It's kind of unsubstantiatable, but I think capitalism is fundamentally a poor fit for "high quality art".
The gaming industry is experiencing the same hyper-commercialization that the movie industry has experienced.
You can argue that the super hero movies of today and the remakes are "better" than older movies on the best objective metric we have (how much revenue they generate), and that we're in "the best era of film of all time" right now, but... I don't know who truly believes that, subjectively. :p It feels wild to believe that. I certainly don't, and I don't for gaming either.
Funny story: I got Doom Eternal about a year after it came out. I needed to make an account, even though I only play singleplayer. When first opening it, I got bombarded by pop-ups from a dozen DLC and update cycles, like a little history of its updates thus far. I cringed at the social media-like network integration stuff in the main menu. I play for a few days. On like the fourth day, when opening the game, this pop-up appears in-game, but it's empty. It's like some network notice, but it's broken. The pop-up is blank. There's no way to get past it. Nothing helps. The game essentially bricked itself via its own botnet bloatware (a thing an older game would never do). Apparently, it happens to console and PC users alike, and there was no solution around it. It's as if it accidentally ripped you, the user, off, in that a digital product just stopped working. (Let's not even mention the plight of future gamers trying to simulate the always-online DRM so they can play it in an emulator. Hey--at least Bethesda removed the kernel-level anticheat following backlash, allowing the game to run on Linux again!) Luckily, even though I was past the usual playtime limit, Steam gave me a full refund. :D
Also, Diablo Immortal is probably more profitable than all the previous Diablo games put together, and I'll leave it to you to decide if that's a case where profitability or even popularity maps with whatever we truly mean by "quality".
The gaming industry is experiencing the same hyper-commercialization that the movie industry has experienced.
You can argue that the super hero movies of today and the remakes are "better" than older movies on the best objective metric we have (how much revenue they generate), and that we're in "the best era of film of all time" right now, but... I don't know who truly believes that, subjectively. :p It feels wild to believe that. I certainly don't, and I don't for gaming either.
Funny story: I got Doom Eternal about a year after it came out. I needed to make an account, even though I only play singleplayer. When first opening it, I got bombarded by pop-ups from a dozen DLC and update cycles, like a little history of its updates thus far. I cringed at the social media-like network integration stuff in the main menu. I play for a few days. On like the fourth day, when opening the game, this pop-up appears in-game, but it's empty. It's like some network notice, but it's broken. The pop-up is blank. There's no way to get past it. Nothing helps. The game essentially bricked itself via its own botnet bloatware (a thing an older game would never do). Apparently, it happens to console and PC users alike, and there was no solution around it. It's as if it accidentally ripped you, the user, off, in that a digital product just stopped working. (Let's not even mention the plight of future gamers trying to simulate the always-online DRM so they can play it in an emulator. Hey--at least Bethesda removed the kernel-level anticheat following backlash, allowing the game to run on Linux again!) Luckily, even though I was past the usual playtime limit, Steam gave me a full refund. :D
Also, Diablo Immortal is probably more profitable than all the previous Diablo games put together, and I'll leave it to you to decide if that's a case where profitability or even popularity maps with whatever we truly mean by "quality".
> The gaming industry is experiencing the same hyper-commercialization that the movie industry has experienced.
I agree, a lot of parallels can be drawn between modern AAA games and superhero movies. the quest to reach the largest market has resulted in products without much in the way of nuance or new ideas. this is kinda what you have to do if you're going to spend $250mm on a game or movie. even achieving wide appeal within a single large country isn't enough to reliably make that back; you have to make something appealing (or at least inoffensive) to most of the world.
at the same time, I think you are missing just how much the gaming market has expanded since 10-20 years ago. while very successful for their time, games like halflife are very niche by today's standards. there's no like-for-like comparison between cod:mw2 and a game from the early/mid 2000s.
if you expect AAA games in 2023 to scratch the same itch as they did back then, you will surely be disappointed. they aren't designed for the same audience. but by and large, more money is available to fund development for all sorts of games today. concepts that would have been a janky mod for some other games ~20 years ago are full-fledged titles of their own now. ymmv of course, but I find that when I lose the expectation for modern AAA-level graphics, there are tons of great new games available in recent years.
I agree, a lot of parallels can be drawn between modern AAA games and superhero movies. the quest to reach the largest market has resulted in products without much in the way of nuance or new ideas. this is kinda what you have to do if you're going to spend $250mm on a game or movie. even achieving wide appeal within a single large country isn't enough to reliably make that back; you have to make something appealing (or at least inoffensive) to most of the world.
at the same time, I think you are missing just how much the gaming market has expanded since 10-20 years ago. while very successful for their time, games like halflife are very niche by today's standards. there's no like-for-like comparison between cod:mw2 and a game from the early/mid 2000s.
if you expect AAA games in 2023 to scratch the same itch as they did back then, you will surely be disappointed. they aren't designed for the same audience. but by and large, more money is available to fund development for all sorts of games today. concepts that would have been a janky mod for some other games ~20 years ago are full-fledged titles of their own now. ymmv of course, but I find that when I lose the expectation for modern AAA-level graphics, there are tons of great new games available in recent years.
I agree, I've played a bunch of games recently due to being disabled and in the 90s and there have been many really excellent games in the past decade. While I'm sure there were some at the time, I can't remember playing any that had a particularly "artistic" feel to them in the 90s, while I've played a number recently. Games like RiME, 8doors, Hollow Knight, Little Bug, Wolfstride, Rakuen, 140, The Witness, most of Amanita's games, The Longest Road on Earth (arguably more a music video than game, but still), The Talos Principle, Haven, Arise, and Golf Club Wasteland all have a strong artistic feel to me and I enjoyed them (up through some of Amanita's are some of my favorites), and a bunch more have just a bit less distinctly artistic feel IMO (like Guacamelee, Beatbuddy, A Short Hike, or Calico, also some of my favorites). Of course, different people have different ideas what makes a game "artistic" and enjoy different types of games.
GOG still exists to avoid most single player DRM issues (some games have limited single player content that requires an internet connection) and with a better refund policy, although unfortunately they don't have good Linux support. I have an entirely offline game system and rarely have any kind of issue due to that (Zachtronics games are some of the worst since you can't see how well you did on a level without an internet connection, unless they changed that since I last tried one a few years ago). GOG has about 4500 games at this point (catalog shows a few hundred more with "hide DLC and extras" but some are miscategorized DLC), not nearly as many as Steam but still quite a few (unfortunately, some developers don't keep the GOG version up to date).
GOG still exists to avoid most single player DRM issues (some games have limited single player content that requires an internet connection) and with a better refund policy, although unfortunately they don't have good Linux support. I have an entirely offline game system and rarely have any kind of issue due to that (Zachtronics games are some of the worst since you can't see how well you did on a level without an internet connection, unless they changed that since I last tried one a few years ago). GOG has about 4500 games at this point (catalog shows a few hundred more with "hide DLC and extras" but some are miscategorized DLC), not nearly as many as Steam but still quite a few (unfortunately, some developers don't keep the GOG version up to date).
> I can't understand folks who don't understand this concept.
Ok, very simple example, are slot machines fun?
I think anyone can objectively look at a slot machine and say "no, that's really not fun". Yet, people spend their entire retirements on slot machines. People DIE pumping quarters into a slot machine. People wear diapers to slot machines. Slot machines are HIGHLY profitable for casinos (which is why they have them).
Fun and profit are not the same thing. Some games, such as Diablo Immortal, have realized that addicting is more profitable than fun. The entire game industry has learned that if you randomize rewards (loot boxes) you can trigger addiction without having a fun game.
> You are not the only opinion in this world
I'd look into the mirror before giving this advice. I realize that some people find gambling fun. Whatever floats your boat. But I also realize that there is such a thing as gambling addiction and it is highly profitable.
Ok, very simple example, are slot machines fun?
I think anyone can objectively look at a slot machine and say "no, that's really not fun". Yet, people spend their entire retirements on slot machines. People DIE pumping quarters into a slot machine. People wear diapers to slot machines. Slot machines are HIGHLY profitable for casinos (which is why they have them).
Fun and profit are not the same thing. Some games, such as Diablo Immortal, have realized that addicting is more profitable than fun. The entire game industry has learned that if you randomize rewards (loot boxes) you can trigger addiction without having a fun game.
> You are not the only opinion in this world
I'd look into the mirror before giving this advice. I realize that some people find gambling fun. Whatever floats your boat. But I also realize that there is such a thing as gambling addiction and it is highly profitable.
Who gets to define 'fun'?
Anything can be fun to anyone, fair enough.
That said, I reject a definition of fun that involves how profitable something is because of the slot machine example.
If fun is anything, it's not getting a diaper rash while going broke.
That said, I reject a definition of fun that involves how profitable something is because of the slot machine example.
If fun is anything, it's not getting a diaper rash while going broke.
What if fun is not 'anything'?
i.e. if it were just electrical impulses going back and forth?
i.e. if it were just electrical impulses going back and forth?
Then it isn't anything. What's your point?
Then there's nothing to reject in the first place.
The proper resolution to this is the realization that fun != good. Fun is a property of context, and anything can be made fun with the right context. Multiplayer is the greatest cheatcode to generating fun -- with friends, poking a bloating corpse and playing the ol' hoop n' stick is fun.
Fun cannot be discussed, or argued, because you cannot properly share that context with others, and you cannot deny the reality of their context.
But good is a property of the game itself -- it's essentially the answer to the question "how well does the game achieve the goals it chases, and how well does it choose its goals?". This is still somehow subjective, but dramatically less so -- we can actually discuss it in a manner that's sensible. To a degree, the discussion has to factor in that we have different beliefs of what those goals are, and whether those are good goals to have, but this is true of any judgement.
And when talking about whether a movie, book, game, etc is any good, no one gives a shit whether you had "fun" playing it, because that tells us nothing about whether its good. It just tells us "your" experience -- your specific relationship to the work -- more about you than it... but we're not talking about you.
Fun cannot be discussed, or argued, because you cannot properly share that context with others, and you cannot deny the reality of their context.
But good is a property of the game itself -- it's essentially the answer to the question "how well does the game achieve the goals it chases, and how well does it choose its goals?". This is still somehow subjective, but dramatically less so -- we can actually discuss it in a manner that's sensible. To a degree, the discussion has to factor in that we have different beliefs of what those goals are, and whether those are good goals to have, but this is true of any judgement.
And when talking about whether a movie, book, game, etc is any good, no one gives a shit whether you had "fun" playing it, because that tells us nothing about whether its good. It just tells us "your" experience -- your specific relationship to the work -- more about you than it... but we're not talking about you.
This is all well and good, and I agree, fun can be different things to different people. So can good.
But that wasn't the comment I was responding to. The comment I responded to made the positive assertion "Things are fun because they are profitable"
> what you define as fun isn't apparently what others define as such, at least when it comes to voting with their dollars.
If you want to change the argument to "fun is unknowable" I can get behind that statement. However, I think the slot machine example is a really good one to prove that fun and profit are not the same thing. Even if you want to argue that the slot machines can be fun, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that addicts to slots are all having a blast.
What's changed in the gaming industry is more focus on profit and less on fun. The gaming industry has learned is what B.F. Skinner discovered decades ago [1], how to get repeat behaviors out of someone with randomize rewards.
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-wise/201311/us...
But that wasn't the comment I was responding to. The comment I responded to made the positive assertion "Things are fun because they are profitable"
> what you define as fun isn't apparently what others define as such, at least when it comes to voting with their dollars.
If you want to change the argument to "fun is unknowable" I can get behind that statement. However, I think the slot machine example is a really good one to prove that fun and profit are not the same thing. Even if you want to argue that the slot machines can be fun, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that addicts to slots are all having a blast.
What's changed in the gaming industry is more focus on profit and less on fun. The gaming industry has learned is what B.F. Skinner discovered decades ago [1], how to get repeat behaviors out of someone with randomize rewards.
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-wise/201311/us...
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here, friend. You seem to be missing my point, which is that "fun" is subjective and there simply is no definition of "fun" that applies to everyone.
Your whole "slot machine" example is predicated on my response being, "Well no, slot machines aren't fun." However, I do think slot machines are loads of fun! Not for me, but for the millions of people who sit there, spend very tiny sums of money (think like $5 for literally 12 hours of chill entertainment), and get to feel good about themselves while they do it.
Your whole "slot machine" example is predicated on my response being, "Well no, slot machines aren't fun." However, I do think slot machines are loads of fun! Not for me, but for the millions of people who sit there, spend very tiny sums of money (think like $5 for literally 12 hours of chill entertainment), and get to feel good about themselves while they do it.
> SC2 just released a huge patch that revamped a lot of balance issues
I feel like tossing in a patch from SC2 as an indicator that it's actively being supported is a little misleading. SC2 had the opportunity to compete with LoL and Dota2 for viewership but Blizzard made a LOT of mistakes with the first expansion that alienated players and sent them to LoL, Dota2, or CSGO.
Their game design philosophy and slow patch rhythm sabotaged the momentum that the pro scene had been building (warp gate tech, infinite value units like Brood Lords and Swarm Hosts, frontloading all Terran power into Stim units, etc). They also catered the ladder experience solely for competitive players, they didn't introduce many (if any) casual-friendly modes until far too late.
I feel like tossing in a patch from SC2 as an indicator that it's actively being supported is a little misleading. SC2 had the opportunity to compete with LoL and Dota2 for viewership but Blizzard made a LOT of mistakes with the first expansion that alienated players and sent them to LoL, Dota2, or CSGO.
Their game design philosophy and slow patch rhythm sabotaged the momentum that the pro scene had been building (warp gate tech, infinite value units like Brood Lords and Swarm Hosts, frontloading all Terran power into Stim units, etc). They also catered the ladder experience solely for competitive players, they didn't introduce many (if any) casual-friendly modes until far too late.
They also broke SC2 into three $60 boxes products, segmenting the multiplayer each time, right at the dawn of the free to play MOBA era on PC. My entire SC2 friend group ditched Heart of the Swarm for League of Legends and never looked back.
Wings of Liberty was a great time, though.
Wings of Liberty was a great time, though.
That triple expansion pack model tanked SC2.
But also, just not being able to play cooperatively with friends was the final death knell. SC was designed for an era where you played alone and then you played against others who played alone because there weren’t a lot of anyone playing SC or anything really.
LoL unlocked an entire demographic of kids who wanted to play with friends. A great explosion in online VC tech helped foster this and the rest is history. Gaming is now a social activity and all the top sellers right now effectively leverage this.
But also, just not being able to play cooperatively with friends was the final death knell. SC was designed for an era where you played alone and then you played against others who played alone because there weren’t a lot of anyone playing SC or anything really.
LoL unlocked an entire demographic of kids who wanted to play with friends. A great explosion in online VC tech helped foster this and the rest is history. Gaming is now a social activity and all the top sellers right now effectively leverage this.
If you want something new and good, I don't think that you should be looking at franchises. Especially not these days when devs are not stuck with boxed releases, so are able to release early and keep polishing and extending the same game for more than a decade.
And I'm going to have to disagree about "not as good as we used to get". Is there any question that Zero-K/Spring (or BAR/Spring) aren't way better than Total Annihilation (ok, maybe not for the orchestral score), despite being entirely community-made ?
https://youtu.be/pHQkctGTm_A
And I'm going to have to disagree about "not as good as we used to get". Is there any question that Zero-K/Spring (or BAR/Spring) aren't way better than Total Annihilation (ok, maybe not for the orchestral score), despite being entirely community-made ?
https://youtu.be/pHQkctGTm_A
On the other hand, CRPGs (of a sort) are still alive and kicking after a short break. If you haven't, try:
* Disco Elysium
* Tyranny
* Shadowrun, all of them
* Pathfinder: Kingmaker
All within the last decade, and at least for Disco Elysium and Tyranny, every bit as good as Planescape Torment.
Western RPGs though.. I don't have high hopes for ES6.
* Disco Elysium
* Tyranny
* Shadowrun, all of them
* Pathfinder: Kingmaker
All within the last decade, and at least for Disco Elysium and Tyranny, every bit as good as Planescape Torment.
Western RPGs though.. I don't have high hopes for ES6.
What mistakes are you concerned about?
I most value the existance of utility spells in a crpg. Spell crafting sytems are also super fun. ES has had both of those elements within some games.
Other games with those qualifications: Ultima underworld Arx fatalis Two worlds series Deus ex series
The obsidian games typically have plenty of utility spells, but not always.
Other games with those qualifications: Ultima underworld Arx fatalis Two worlds series Deus ex series
The obsidian games typically have plenty of utility spells, but not always.
Oh don't get me wrong I've loved all the ES games so far, but they do show a trend of stripping out exactly that fun experimental part. In Morrowind the game even eggs you on to do the silly Jump + Levitate/Feather Fall hijinks by dropping that dude from the sky while you're walking. And in general the magic and alchemy system is bonkers in the good way. The game encourages you to break it. Not to mention the "fast travel system" of the various utility spells which I found quite immersive.
Oblivion has some of that stuff too but it's definitely simplified.
Skyrim has no spell crafting at all, which means combat becomes "mash mouse button" or "sneaky arrow". Lycanthropy is pretty fun though, but also wears out. Mods definitely saved the game since they add all the crazy shit that is missing.
The trend is quite obvious though. Don't get me wrong, I'll still definitely play the shit out of ES6, I just don't feel it will reach the glory of Morrowind.
> Ultima underworld Arx fatalis Two worlds series Deus ex series
Sadly I've already played all of these. Never did finish Arx Fatalis though, might go back to it..
Oblivion has some of that stuff too but it's definitely simplified.
Skyrim has no spell crafting at all, which means combat becomes "mash mouse button" or "sneaky arrow". Lycanthropy is pretty fun though, but also wears out. Mods definitely saved the game since they add all the crazy shit that is missing.
The trend is quite obvious though. Don't get me wrong, I'll still definitely play the shit out of ES6, I just don't feel it will reach the glory of Morrowind.
> Ultima underworld Arx fatalis Two worlds series Deus ex series
Sadly I've already played all of these. Never did finish Arx Fatalis though, might go back to it..
These really are hidden gems. I’m glad some are getting a second chance on mobile devices. But it’s not the same as playing on a PC.
Especially with graphics million times faster than the devs could have imagined.
Especially with graphics million times faster than the devs could have imagined.
> Tyranny, every bit as good as Planescape Torment
That has got to be a joke.
Tyranny has MMO-style ability cooldowns that make combat a boring spam-what-is-availale fest, pretty much no enemy or encounter variety, companions which barely any development compared to those in PS:T, as well as a story that is obviously cut short of what it should have been.
That has got to be a joke.
Tyranny has MMO-style ability cooldowns that make combat a boring spam-what-is-availale fest, pretty much no enemy or encounter variety, companions which barely any development compared to those in PS:T, as well as a story that is obviously cut short of what it should have been.
Yeah the story is obviously cut short, but the originality of it just makes it have that special place in my heart that Planescape does. Disco Elysium is without a doubt deserving of the title though.
I also don't play CRPGs for the combat mostly. That's why the old Infinity Engine games were a lot of fun, it was about cheesing through the game in funny ways while enjoying an amazing story.
I also don't play CRPGs for the combat mostly. That's why the old Infinity Engine games were a lot of fun, it was about cheesing through the game in funny ways while enjoying an amazing story.
> Single player FPS is basically dead
hm isn't there a ton of different single player FPS out that are fairly creative? Like Deathloop recently, MW2 single player campaign was pretty good.
It's the innovation in multiplayer FPS that's gone pretty much short of biannual efforts from AAA (Battlefield, CoD) and 1-2 niche attempts from indies (Hell Let Loose was good, Cycle Frontier) Otherwise it's just closing the gap with freemium and premium
hm isn't there a ton of different single player FPS out that are fairly creative? Like Deathloop recently, MW2 single player campaign was pretty good.
It's the innovation in multiplayer FPS that's gone pretty much short of biannual efforts from AAA (Battlefield, CoD) and 1-2 niche attempts from indies (Hell Let Loose was good, Cycle Frontier) Otherwise it's just closing the gap with freemium and premium
This is where I expected HL3 to come in... years ago. They had gravity gun. They had portal gun from portal.
HL3 just needed to merge the two storylines/timelines and give players both.
Imagine multiplayer with that!
HL3 just needed to merge the two storylines/timelines and give players both.
Imagine multiplayer with that!
Well, in the last 20 years or so many times it was declared that this and that genre died out. Then they all resurfaced. Indy devs do the creative work and innovation, because AAA games are all about risk aversion and money printing.
Still sour that GTA V never received the single player story DLC.
The good news is, most of the old games still run. Unless you're married to modern graphics, there's zero reason to even bother looking at most game market places these days, unless you're really just trying to figure out how to fill up 100+ GB of disk space as fast as possible.
I almost question whether having this deal blocked may ultimately be the best for Microsoft...the game industry seems to be collapsing in on itself. The one big thing I'd argue with myself on there would be a lot of the IP and its ability to be applied to non-gaming "metaverse" applications. Games aren't getting any better, and often, aren't as good as what we had 10 years ago, but I can't argue that the graphics are improving significantly, even if it doesn't matter to me in the slightest from a gaming standpoint.
Though, I probably underestimate the never ending stream of children who are always making fun of each other for not having the latest shiniest skin or emote in whatever "Free" game they happen to be playing these days.
I almost question whether having this deal blocked may ultimately be the best for Microsoft...the game industry seems to be collapsing in on itself. The one big thing I'd argue with myself on there would be a lot of the IP and its ability to be applied to non-gaming "metaverse" applications. Games aren't getting any better, and often, aren't as good as what we had 10 years ago, but I can't argue that the graphics are improving significantly, even if it doesn't matter to me in the slightest from a gaming standpoint.
Though, I probably underestimate the never ending stream of children who are always making fun of each other for not having the latest shiniest skin or emote in whatever "Free" game they happen to be playing these days.
They're only printing money because of the brand recognition and goodwill back from when they still made good games. That isn't going to last forever.
So can we as stakeholders honestly think when we're on Diablo 22 in 2039 that we can expect this kind of money making continue? Look at what Activision does. Look at how Fortnite is eating Call of Duty and Overwatch's lunch. Software companies are expected to revolutionize and innovate not 'evolutionize' and rehash.
Was that $300M number ever confirmed by Blizzard/Activation? Your article cites mobilegamer.biz which cites Appmagic - those third party estimates are never going to be fully accurate and could be wildly off.
Anecdotally, I played the game briefly at launch and it died in terms of player numbers very very quickly.
Anecdotally, I played the game briefly at launch and it died in terms of player numbers very very quickly.
I believe that ship has sailed and the culture has changed. Simply removing Activision's influence won't put things back the way they were. Perhaps bringing back some of the original leaders might.
> and only very recently have things looked somewhat brighter for them
Haven't been following recently. What have made the things to look brighter? It's really hard to see these things as a non-player these days because of all the negativity surrounding the company. Can't say I don't see why it is that way, though.
Haven't been following recently. What have made the things to look brighter? It's really hard to see these things as a non-player these days because of all the negativity surrounding the company. Can't say I don't see why it is that way, though.
I don't understand how this is any way monopolistic. There's an enormous amount of competition in the gaming space. If anything, this just makes Microsoft into more of a conglomerate: something we should be encouraging and is good for a society!
> don't understand how this is any way monopolistic
It's oligopolistic, you have a virtually integrated behemoth across multiple sectors that is too big to fail, which is not good for competition and thus for consumers.
> If anything, this just makes Microsoft into more of a conglomerate: something we should be encouraging and is good for a society!
Is this sarcasm I'm missing? There's nothing wrong with conglomerates, but enormous vertically integrated with exclusivity ones aren't good for society.
It's oligopolistic, you have a virtually integrated behemoth across multiple sectors that is too big to fail, which is not good for competition and thus for consumers.
> If anything, this just makes Microsoft into more of a conglomerate: something we should be encouraging and is good for a society!
Is this sarcasm I'm missing? There's nothing wrong with conglomerates, but enormous vertically integrated with exclusivity ones aren't good for society.
What market does Microsoft operate in where there aren’t strong competitors? Google docs, AWS, PlayStation and Nintendo, Zoom, Chromebooks, Postgres/Oracle, Splunk/McAfee. If Microsoft exited any of those markets the competition would soak up the market share and keep right on going.
Doesn’t sound too-big-to-fail to me. Big on it’s own isn’t necessarily bad.
Doesn’t sound too-big-to-fail to me. Big on it’s own isn’t necessarily bad.
The only reason the majority of Microsoft's product still exist is the company behind them. E.g. Azure, Microsoft Teams are objectively extremely poor products with tons of drawbacks compared to any of their competitors, and would never survive on their own - their only "advantage" is that they come from a known brand enterprises already have relationships with, so it's "easy". So legitimate competitors lose market share to a poor cross-subsidised product propped up by Microsoft's cash. This is not good for the competition nor the consumers (be they business or consumer).
Nothing monopolistic about this acquisition. Microsoft is a small player in a huge market right now.
In America today, when people say “monopoly” they just mean “big”. It’s watered down to the point of being meaningless.
Yeah, I wish MS could buy Blizzard from Activision rather than acquiring both of them. But I suspect they're mostly doing it to get Call of Duty so that wouldn't really work.
It’s interesting that nobody is talking about King, candy crush is a license print money.
> I just hope Blizzard can one day be completely divorced from Activision.
What for? Blizzard's a shell of its former glory and hadn't done much of note recently (even if it's still making money). The way things are, within Activision, Microsoft or on its own, I don't really see Blizzard making anything on the level of their best games in the future.
What for? Blizzard's a shell of its former glory and hadn't done much of note recently (even if it's still making money). The way things are, within Activision, Microsoft or on its own, I don't really see Blizzard making anything on the level of their best games in the future.
From my pov blizzard was already draining LONG before activision. The success of WoW killed their creativity and standards as they could just focus on recycled cliche on rails content and make loads of cash.
That said, even if it's activision, and even if you can can somehow separate them, the talent that made blizzard blizzard (whatever era of it you enjoyed) is likely long gone.
That said, even if it's activision, and even if you can can somehow separate them, the talent that made blizzard blizzard (whatever era of it you enjoyed) is likely long gone.
I miss the days when Bill Roper was there.
The fact that they repolished D2 into a game absolutely worth playing today on modern hardware, gorgeously really shows how good he was. And tbf, how good the graphics team is. D2R is a wonderful game, and the fact that the same old (but great) engine is actually still running is kinda incredible.
I wish OW2 was a gem like that. A friend and I have over 1k hours each into OW1.
The fact that they repolished D2 into a game absolutely worth playing today on modern hardware, gorgeously really shows how good he was. And tbf, how good the graphics team is. D2R is a wonderful game, and the fact that the same old (but great) engine is actually still running is kinda incredible.
I wish OW2 was a gem like that. A friend and I have over 1k hours each into OW1.
Im totally in support of stopping monopolies but idk guys, Blizzard sucks so much now I kinda want to see MSFT fix it lol
Just 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.
Xbox 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.
Yes - Sony are the ones to hold on to exclusives right now. Not Microsoft.
exclusivity 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.
More likely this lower msft quality.
Idk, 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.
I understand the feeling but I'm not sure Microsoft would actually fix anything. Microsoft hasn't fixed any of the problems that Bethesda had pre-acquisition. Nothing has improved for employees; the only difference is that their games aren't released on Sony platforms anymore.
Well, it couldn't be worse with Kotick out of the picture. At least Microsoft would let devs unionize
Yeah after seeing how Mick Gordon's case was handled, even after Microsoft's acquisitions, I don't see anything changing with Activision either.
Microsoft managed to ruin Nokia, so there's not much of a guarantee that things would go well.
Nokia was not doing so hot before Microsoft bought them.
Unless you're talking about their Windows Phone exclusivity deal before that which kneecapped them when they could have been making Android devices all those years and might have been competition in the Android space to this day.
Unless you're talking about their Windows Phone exclusivity deal before that which kneecapped them when they could have been making Android devices all those years and might have been competition in the Android space to this day.
> Nokia was not doing so hot before Microsoft bought them.
The argument was that Blizzard isn't doing so hot either, and that Microsoft would fix them.
The argument was that Blizzard isn't doing so hot either, and that Microsoft would fix them.
Fair point haha
What'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.
I 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.
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.
AAA games are more like hollywood blockbusters than games from the old days. Massive budgets, lots of risk, etc
Requires a different corporate structure
Requires a different corporate structure
Hyper 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.
AAA 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.
Minecraft 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.
I'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.
Yes, well, the fact is that only a teeny tiny fraction of indie games gets even the remote possibility of a glimmer of a hope of achieving something even closely resembling any kind of popularity. The vast majority of game releases on Steam just sell maybe a few 100 copies. That's it. These games just don't get seen. The market is too flooded with releases for any conceivable storefront to display that catalog fairly.
Minecraft was like 10 years old when it was purchased. It’a remarkable it’s still actively played at all. Most games would have died off and had a sequel released in that time.
I don't know if that's true from a business perspective. I suspect that twice as many people (ie customers) use Minecraft across all the platform ports now than did before the acquisition, despite what the oldtimers have to say about Bedrock Edition.
The China edition launched in 2017. It has 500 million users as of Oct 2021. It's based on Bedrock Edition, not Java. This is 100% a Microsoft scaling thing.
[deleted]
That applies to most products I can think of. I suppose the simple answer is that if you want to go mainstream with _anything_ B2C, you need to invest a ridiculous amount of money into marketing. To get that kind of money to play with, I don't think there's much of an alternative to the stock market and VCs, is there? There's a few exceptions I can think of, but not many.
As much as I enjoy indie games, I do think they've contributed heavily to the incredibly oversaturated market we see right now. It's downright impossible to find actually good mobile games for example without investing hours of research.
As much as I enjoy indie games, I do think they've contributed heavily to the incredibly oversaturated market we see right now. It's downright impossible to find actually good mobile games for example without investing hours of research.
I mean...this generalizes to a huge problem with our country's corporate culture over the last several decades.
While there have always been people primarily motivated by profit, it at least feels like, in previous times, there was always the sense that the purpose of a business was to provide a product or service, and the profit was their reward for doing that well.
More recently, it feels much more like the purpose of a business is to make as much money as humanly possible, and whatever product or service they provide is just a necessary evil to make that happen.
Personally, I believe this can, as you suggest, be laid at the feet of Wall Street, and the insatiable drive for more profit, more growth, faster growth, more more more. How we get rid of it...is a harder problem.
While there have always been people primarily motivated by profit, it at least feels like, in previous times, there was always the sense that the purpose of a business was to provide a product or service, and the profit was their reward for doing that well.
More recently, it feels much more like the purpose of a business is to make as much money as humanly possible, and whatever product or service they provide is just a necessary evil to make that happen.
Personally, I believe this can, as you suggest, be laid at the feet of Wall Street, and the insatiable drive for more profit, more growth, faster growth, more more more. How we get rid of it...is a harder problem.
[deleted]
>That gives us bullshit like loot boxes, NFTs, etc.
Valve pioneered all 3 in games, and they're still private :shrugs:
Valve pioneered all 3 in games, and they're still private :shrugs:
That model works until you have one mediocre or poor selling game, then you’re out of business. The security added by investors providing money beyond the immediate 1-2 game horizon gets you out of this cycle a bit. Of course it brings other problems with it related to game quality and decision making processes designed to satisfy shareholders instead of the audience, all of which is to say there are significant trade offs with either choice.
While 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.
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.
Good. Microsoft buying up every single game publisher they can get their hands on is good for no one.
I 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.
Off topic: I misread this as FTX Seeks to block... And was shocked but weirdly not surprised...
I 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.
At 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?
Around 2000? Hm... didn't the big Microsoft antitrust case get its teeth pulled by political influence around that time?
Just so.
ETA: although this is much bigger than just MSFT.
ETA: although this is much bigger than just MSFT.
No, 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_Cor...
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Cor...
Hm, 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.
I can easily name about 10 high profile competitors to Microsoft in the gaming space off the top of my head. What are you on about?
This deal was announced almost a year ago. Let this be another example of governments being slow to react to things.
I 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...
Good, monopolies are only good for board rooms. Break them up.
I 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.
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.
Sony 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.
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.
Yup. 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.
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.
>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.
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.
Bungie's ARR blows Bethesda's revenue out of the water.
Yes, Bungie has 1 IP that is alive and people make "This is it, D2 is dying" video every year.
Bethesda alone as more IPs even if you don't take other ZeniMax's IPs in to consideration.
Bethesda alone as more IPs even if you don't take other ZeniMax's IPs in to consideration.
Also Microsoft offered to make Call of Duty available on PlayStation for the next 10 years, which is unprecedented. I think that kind of takes the wind right out of Sony's whining. It bothers me that Sony does worse monopolistic things, like blocking cross-play, and then goes crying to the law to prevent Microsoft getting a leg up. I mean it's totally expected, typical big business stuff, but it's hypocritical as fuck.
> Also Microsoft offered to make Call of Duty available on PlayStation for the next 10 years, which is unprecedented.
So what? That was obviously just a move to try and prevent the FTC from doing exactly this, not out of the goodness of their hearts. Great, 10 years of 1 series continuing to be cross-platform, and then you blink and 10 years is up and Microsoft has bought the entire gaming space and Sony dies a slow death because they didn't have infinite money like Microsoft. Or Microsoft buys them too!
Here's your 12 new plates of gray goo to choose from, straight out of the Microsoft games factory. Enjoy.
So what? That was obviously just a move to try and prevent the FTC from doing exactly this, not out of the goodness of their hearts. Great, 10 years of 1 series continuing to be cross-platform, and then you blink and 10 years is up and Microsoft has bought the entire gaming space and Sony dies a slow death because they didn't have infinite money like Microsoft. Or Microsoft buys them too!
Here's your 12 new plates of gray goo to choose from, straight out of the Microsoft games factory. Enjoy.
And Sony is what? They're worse. They're just trying to get the FTC to do their dirty work for them.
The thing about games, if they're gray goo, you don't buy them. There's lot's to choose from. Games are a meritocracy, they live or die on their own merits, regardless of which company produces them. If Microsoft turns them to gray goo, they only hurt themselves.
The thing about games, if they're gray goo, you don't buy them. There's lot's to choose from. Games are a meritocracy, they live or die on their own merits, regardless of which company produces them. If Microsoft turns them to gray goo, they only hurt themselves.
The AB acquisition wouldn't even budge the needle. The gaming industry is huge and none of AB's IP is big enough to be considered anything close to monopolistic. So they'd get CoD and WoW and a handful of dead franchises. What are the most sold and the most popular games on consoles and PC in the past year?
Honestly, blocking this acquisition is a green light for Sony to continue buying up companies and not having to compete by, say, making their own AAA shooter again. I'm not sure how this makes us better off.
Honestly, blocking this acquisition is a green light for Sony to continue buying up companies and not having to compete by, say, making their own AAA shooter again. I'm not sure how this makes us better off.
Isn't Nintendo biggest first party?
Yes, you are probably correct. Nintendo has largely created its own studios, rather than acquire like Sony and MS.
Don't mistake critical acclaim for sales volume and scale. The balance sheet doesn't care about how unique and good a game is.
Sony's first party game studio segment of their business is not bigger than Activision-Blizzard.
Looking at Q4 2021, around 20% of Sony's game unit sales were first party titles. It seems to vary between 10-20% depending on the quarter.
Total game sales accounted for $2.5 billion in revenue, so we can assume that about $500 million of that revenue is from Sony's own published titles.
We could be generous and assume that Sony games on average sell for higher than the typical game, you could bump that number up to something like $700 million.
Now let's look at Activision-Blizzard: In Q4 of 2021, their revenue was $2.1 billion, so they're bringing in up to 4x more revenue from game sales than Sony's revenue from their self-published titles.
Call of Duty alone brought in in $1 billion of revenue for 2021, so the Call of Duty business is about half the size of Sony's entire game development business.
Sony's game sales including the cut they take from third party developers on their platform barely exceeds Activision-Blizzard's revenue.
[1] https://gameworldobserver.com/2022/11/01/playstation-profit-...
[2] https://investor.activision.com/news-releases/news-release-d...
Sony's first party game studio segment of their business is not bigger than Activision-Blizzard.
Looking at Q4 2021, around 20% of Sony's game unit sales were first party titles. It seems to vary between 10-20% depending on the quarter.
Total game sales accounted for $2.5 billion in revenue, so we can assume that about $500 million of that revenue is from Sony's own published titles.
We could be generous and assume that Sony games on average sell for higher than the typical game, you could bump that number up to something like $700 million.
Now let's look at Activision-Blizzard: In Q4 of 2021, their revenue was $2.1 billion, so they're bringing in up to 4x more revenue from game sales than Sony's revenue from their self-published titles.
Call of Duty alone brought in in $1 billion of revenue for 2021, so the Call of Duty business is about half the size of Sony's entire game development business.
Sony's game sales including the cut they take from third party developers on their platform barely exceeds Activision-Blizzard's revenue.
[1] https://gameworldobserver.com/2022/11/01/playstation-profit-...
[2] https://investor.activision.com/news-releases/news-release-d...
Microsoft 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)
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)
Until 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
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
I’m glad Bobby Kotick isn’t getting out of his mess with a golden parachute just yet.
[deleted]
Clearly, 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.
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.
This 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."
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."
But 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.
The 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.
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.
Probably 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.
Recently 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/637cecede90e0...
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/637cecede90e0...
I 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.
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.
Everything 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.
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.
Support tickets in WOW are now almost up to a 9 day response time.
That 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.
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.
FTC 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.
While 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.
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.
While 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.
There 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?
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?
I 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?
The difference isn't the means, the difference is the scale. Microsoft acquiring exclusivity for all of a big publisher's titles is different than a single or even a few titles.
Would what be the same? Would it still be bad and I believe the FTC should block it? Yes. But there's also a lot more variables than just once sentence hypothetical.
Would what be the same? Would it still be bad and I believe the FTC should block it? Yes. But there's also a lot more variables than just once sentence hypothetical.
Am I missing something? Does the FTC have any authority over Sony, a Japanese company? Isn’t comparing these two companies in terms of US government regulation kind of pointless?
Sony has a US based company, also anyone that tries to do business in the US is going to be subject to regulation of the US. Same story for EU.
How about congress passing a law which prohibits M&A of big companies because this is getting ridiculous.
This 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.
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]
Good. 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.
"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)
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
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
But I was totally wanting Clippy as a questgiver in Ogrimmar.
I 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.
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.
This 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.
Consolidation 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.
everything being on a fucking subscription is NOT a good thing. Microsoft can raise the price whenever they feel like it. They can also launch games subscription-exclusive if they feel like it. Stop trying to push people not owning things as a pro-consumer business model when it is conceptually predatory.
It is anti-consumer if such merger and circumstance causes those games to be exclusively accessible to those with Gamepass. While exclusivity is competition, too much of it is monopoly - and there are people who study anti-trust within industries for a living, and they're making a pretty good case that this is too much.
What you're saying is that Microsoft will not have to compete on creating a good game subscription service for other publishers and developers because they can just buy up everyone. That is, by definition, anticompetitive. Removing competition from the market.
The person you are responding to said anti-consumer, not anti-competitive.
But with there being no competition, things will be worse for consumers. That's why 'we' have anti-competition laws.
There is a fringe economic theory, popular mainly in right "libertarian" circles, that claims otherwise, e.g.:
https://truthonthemarket.com/2014/09/13/peter-thiel-on-the-v...
https://truthonthemarket.com/2014/09/13/peter-thiel-on-the-v...
It's not particularly surprisingly that a venture capitalist thinks monopolies are cool
Short-term. Long-term, any kind of consolidation upsets the power balance between the customers and the monopolist in favor of the latter, and it's only a matter of time before it will be taken advantage of. In your example, it would be likely that the price of the Xbox game pass will increase eventually, once there's less competition.
there's absolutely nothing monopolistic about this deal. How can you say that with a straight face?
oligopolistic?
This is all based on feelings. In reality most of the market has disappeared into mobile gaming, PC, and Nintendo. Microsoft has plenty of potential marketshare to tap into without getting into a war with Sony, a war that they are likely to continue losing regardless of who they acquire (they own MINECRAFT of all things), they just need to figure out how to carve a niche.
I just can’t understand he notion that we have to allow this consolidation, and the consequences that will come with it (like the Starfield and TES VI exclusives), because third place isn’t good enough for Microsoft to push their weight around.
It's not just Microsoft vs Sony. It's also that game publishers are already highly concentrated. Activision-Blizzard is one of the bigger independent companies out there and losing them to Microsoft would be bad for industry wide competition, similar to Sysco/US foods.
Does 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).
Ben 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-...
> 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-...
This 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.
Perhaps, 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.
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.
> How would Activision bill Microsoft for N users playing M games?
Isn't this Microsoft's job in building a valid product out of game subscription/streaming? What's the goal here - Microsoft owns every game developer to have on their subscription service?
It's like saying Spotify must buy all the big labels because how else could they run a streaming business?
Isn't this Microsoft's job in building a valid product out of game subscription/streaming? What's the goal here - Microsoft owns every game developer to have on their subscription service?
It's like saying Spotify must buy all the big labels because how else could they run a streaming business?
We already know how this works though, some games are flat-fee, some are based on usage.
https://www.pcgamer.com/xbox-chief-reveals-more-about-how-de...
https://www.pcgamer.com/xbox-chief-reveals-more-about-how-de...
Game Pass has it's downsides.
Games have been massively devalued by Game Pass, PS Plus, indie bundles, and Steam sales. Plenty of bargains for the consumer, but it's not good news for the majority of developers.
If developers can't make money from selling games outright, well, look at the mobile game market...
Games have been massively devalued by Game Pass, PS Plus, indie bundles, and Steam sales. Plenty of bargains for the consumer, but it's not good news for the majority of developers.
If developers can't make money from selling games outright, well, look at the mobile game market...
I think Gamepass is a factor - it affects suppply, no question - but the raw supply of all games seems as high as it’s ever been. One could argue the latter has led to the former; there are so many titles being released regularly now that Gamepass and perpetual Steam sales can happen.
Yeah Game Pass is really a deal. I hadn't understand that it bundle cloud gaming. It's possible by Microsoft's profit from other division.
Also, if these companies are selling entertainment, they may have a “gaming monopoly” (which they don’t) these companies need to compete with the ability to get eyeballs from companies like Disney. It seems very myopic to just imagine video gaming is its own little island here unaffected by other entertainment companies.
I think Game Pass is a big loss for consumers.
* The player doesn't actually own anything. I routinely play games I purchased 5+ years ago, which is a fantastic long term entertainment investment.
* The player doesn't have a direct relationship with the game studio. Microsoft injects themselves a middle man, and is essentially rent seeking.
* The player has much more limited rights to run the software the way they want to. I can legally buy a switch cartridge, a switch, and run the switch game on an emulator. Nintendo hates this. My access to Game Pass games is legally limited to ways Microsoft considers appropriate.
* The player doesn't actually own anything. I routinely play games I purchased 5+ years ago, which is a fantastic long term entertainment investment.
* The player doesn't have a direct relationship with the game studio. Microsoft injects themselves a middle man, and is essentially rent seeking.
* The player has much more limited rights to run the software the way they want to. I can legally buy a switch cartridge, a switch, and run the switch game on an emulator. Nintendo hates this. My access to Game Pass games is legally limited to ways Microsoft considers appropriate.
That is cool for you, but I would argue you aren’t the “average consumer”. Buying physical games in antiquated for a lot of people. And I think the vast middle ground is where most consumers are. Use GamePass for a majority of games, and buy the physical copy for the ones worth replaying.
There is no indication that physical copies are dead. In fact, for all the impacts of streaming on movies, you can still buy physical copies of almost every movie.
This isn’t about killing “choice”, it is about giving consumers a different choice than the one you would make. But thankfully it isn’t zero-sum so you can still buy a CD custom wrapped in plastic
There is no indication that physical copies are dead. In fact, for all the impacts of streaming on movies, you can still buy physical copies of almost every movie.
This isn’t about killing “choice”, it is about giving consumers a different choice than the one you would make. But thankfully it isn’t zero-sum so you can still buy a CD custom wrapped in plastic
> There is no indication that physical copies are dead.
Might want to talk to DVD and Netflix. Physical copies are on life support, and you won't be able to buy them anymore except through GamePass or equivalent service.
This is what Microsoft wants, because they can continue to charge a subscription price for decades old games (there's a few selections on GamePass if you want decades-old games).
Might want to talk to DVD and Netflix. Physical copies are on life support, and you won't be able to buy them anymore except through GamePass or equivalent service.
This is what Microsoft wants, because they can continue to charge a subscription price for decades old games (there's a few selections on GamePass if you want decades-old games).
Are you sure? Because last time I went to Target, they had a literal “bargain bin” of mainstream BluRay disks. i am talking dollars for a mainstream blockbuster. Maybe you should focus on convincing “the masses” that they should pay per game, because if the market is any indication, people prefer a fixed cost subscription service.
It’s okay, it isn’t the first time that the interests of “the market” are in opposition to one’s values and it won’t be the last.
Most people don’t have the same values as you seem to have. That doesn’t mean that either are wrong, but it does mean you might be tilting at the wrong windmill
It’s okay, it isn’t the first time that the interests of “the market” are in opposition to one’s values and it won’t be the last.
Most people don’t have the same values as you seem to have. That doesn’t mean that either are wrong, but it does mean you might be tilting at the wrong windmill
> they had a literal “bargain bin” of mainstream BluRay disks
> because if the market is any indication, people prefer a fixed cost subscription service.
I'm not sure what you're debating here. I'm saying physical media is dead. You're saying both they're not and they are?
> because if the market is any indication, people prefer a fixed cost subscription service.
I'm not sure what you're debating here. I'm saying physical media is dead. You're saying both they're not and they are?
> That is cool for you, but I would argue you aren’t the “average consumer”.
I think the "average" PC and Steamdeck player is interested in emulation, so it's a good segment of the market but not the largest. If a game was only ever released on Game Pass (and do you really think Microsoft doesn't want a Game Pass Exclusive) then running the game outside of a Microsoft Game pass context is illegal.
I think the "average" PC and Steamdeck player is interested in emulation, so it's a good segment of the market but not the largest. If a game was only ever released on Game Pass (and do you really think Microsoft doesn't want a Game Pass Exclusive) then running the game outside of a Microsoft Game pass context is illegal.
But you can buy non-physical DRM-free games too on GOG or itch.io, for example.
So it's not just physical games that stay with you forever. DRM-free digital PC games are even better because you can back them up a lot easier than disk/cartridge-based physical games.
Microsoft... "We love Linux!"
Microsoft, "We make all attempts to prevent games from running on anything but our platform."
Microsoft, "We make all attempts to prevent games from running on anything but our platform."
“Today we seek to stop Microsoft from gaining control over a leading independent game studio…”
Because Minecraft isn't on every platform. I don't think the FTC understands how games sell.
[deleted]
This 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
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32606584
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33518102
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
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32606584
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33518102
Microsoft 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.
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.
I 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.
> 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.
Where was the FTC before Disney snapped up all the media companies?
I 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?
why was there never a Warcraft 4? Were the World of Warcraft expansions effectively continuations of that franchise?
- 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?