[HN Gopher] FTC seeks to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activi... ___________________________________________________________________ FTC seeks to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard Author : Pulcinella Score : 278 points Date : 2022-12-08 19:26 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.ftc.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.ftc.gov) | deathanatos wrote: | 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. | HDThoreaun wrote: | It has never been easier to watch content. 123movies has a | better UX than prime imo. | deathanatos wrote: | _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? | HDThoreaun wrote: | 123movies has every piece of content you would want. Go | ahead and google for it. | deathanatos wrote: | Some of us would prefer to not pirate the content. | Dracophoenix wrote: | Which one? | M4v3R wrote: | Recently it was Bleach for me, not available in Poland for | whatever reason. | siggen wrote: | Summertime Render? | deathanatos wrote: | Nailed it. | bogwog wrote: | Piracy is the only option they're giving you then. | p0pcult wrote: | Why do you think that the parent poster is _entitled_ to | watch it? There is clearly the option of _not watching it_. | bogwog wrote: | 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. | gameshot911 wrote: | 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. | bheadmaster wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | deathanatos wrote: | I mean, I've got a fairly long list of content on that | list, some years old at this point. | nickthegreek wrote: | 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. | bheadmaster wrote: | Yo, ho, ho, and a bottle of rum! | theptip wrote: | 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-... | ollien wrote: | 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. | theptip wrote: | 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. | bluescrn wrote: | 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... | wincy wrote: | 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. | bdz wrote: | 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. | blueboo wrote: | 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... | ghostpepper wrote: | > 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. | PaulHoule wrote: | 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) | Izikiel43 wrote: | 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. | ghostpepper wrote: | 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. | MBCook wrote: | 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. | Hamuko wrote: | > _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. | inetknght wrote: | > _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. | RajT88 wrote: | 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. | danaris wrote: | 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. | yesco wrote: | I assume the main concern is Call of Duty becoming an Xbox | exclusive | bdz wrote: | 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. | erik wrote: | 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] | criddell wrote: | If the current situation sucks then doesn't it makes sense | to block moves that would make it suck even more? | traverseda wrote: | Doesn't it? Why not? | miiiiiike wrote: | 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. | ThatPlayer wrote: | 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... | mirashii wrote: | Microsoft has already committed to releasing Call of Duty on | Nintendo platforms and Steam, so that's probably not any part | of the concern. | Pulcinella wrote: | _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. | lokar wrote: | For how long? | monocularvision wrote: | 10 years. | lokar wrote: | I just don't get that. Either the market advantage / | concentration is ok or it's not. Why let them have what | they claim is an inappropriate share, just later? | octodog wrote: | If Sony/Nintendo/others can't make a popular FPS in 10 | years that isn't a Microsoft problem. | [deleted] | Goronmon wrote: | 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. | CBarkleyU wrote: | > 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? | the_doctah wrote: | Has Microsoft ever been successful with acquiring a gaming | studio? Last example I can think of is Rare. And they ruined | Rare. | mekster wrote: | Where do you see much MS hatred these days? | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: | > 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. | encryptluks2 wrote: | Microsoft... "We love Linux!" | | Microsoft, "We make all attempts to prevent games from running on | anything but our platform." | drannex wrote: | Good, monopolies are only good for board rooms. Break them up. | ulkesh wrote: | 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. | rubyist5eva wrote: | Nothing monopolistic about this acquisition. Microsoft is a | small player in a huge market right now. | p1necone wrote: | 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. | n4bz0r wrote: | > 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. | jxi wrote: | 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. | sakras wrote: | 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. | chrononaut wrote: | > Diablo Immortal is a sickening game. | | I actually only (re-)learned of the game recently (I recall | its original announcement), but not enough to know anything | more about it and I have been meaning to go back to it and | check it out. Do you have a short version of what lends you | that opinion? | Zircom wrote: | 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. | AlexandrB wrote: | 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. | Waterluvian wrote: | 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. | bombcar wrote: | 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. | madrox wrote: | 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. | SpaceManNabs wrote: | Blizzard was done before Activision. Even before the Vivendi | deal. | tarsinge wrote: | 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. | chowells wrote: | 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. | beebmam wrote: | 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! | sofixa wrote: | > 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. | Pulcinella wrote: | Blizzard and Activision definitely need a very, very thorough | house cleaning when it comes to worker mistreatment and sexual | harassment. | [deleted] | TillE wrote: | 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. | Sakos wrote: | 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. | Firmwarrior wrote: | Diablo 4 is a grindy MMORPG with some Diablo elements, so | don't get your hopes up too much | gopher_space wrote: | 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. | holler wrote: | 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/ | Goronmon wrote: | 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. | t0lo wrote: | 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. | leidenfrost wrote: | 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. | caskstrength wrote: | > 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? | sergiotapia wrote: | All of the people responsible for the Blizzard seal of quality | are long gone. They are Blizzard in name only. | wnevets wrote: | > 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.... | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | $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. | octodog wrote: | $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. | Aerroon wrote: | 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? | virgildotcodes wrote: | Plus they sell in game services, cosmetics, and game time | tokens. | wnevets wrote: | Are you really saying a mobile game earning 300M in roughly | 4 months is bad? | skupig wrote: | Yeah, cashing in on your reputation is bad. Short-term | thinking like this is killing every Blizzard franchise. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | I'm saying a 1-time $300M revenue compared to $14B in | revenue per year for ~8 straight years is not really that | significant. | wnevets wrote: | 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. | Retric wrote: | That's earnings not profit. | | Considering the cost to create and amount of reputation | damage it caused, YES. Diablo immortal was a massive | failure. | wnevets wrote: | 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. | Laforet wrote: | 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... | wnevets wrote: | > 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. | snapcaster wrote: | I miss old blizzard too, but it was a massive success. It | makes tons of money | PeterCorless wrote: | It also gave us SusanExpress and gold farming. Heaven | help us. | bobmaxup wrote: | 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 | sbagel wrote: | > 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. | seattle_spring wrote: | 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... | p1necone wrote: | 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. | cogman10 wrote: | 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 :(. | SpeedilyDamage wrote: | 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. | cogman10 wrote: | > 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. | MichaelZuo wrote: | Who gets to define 'fun'? | cogman10 wrote: | 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. | whatshisface wrote: | 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. | p3rls wrote: | 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. | shrimp_emoji wrote: | 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". | sofixa wrote: | 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. | p1necone wrote: | 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. | Laforet wrote: | 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. | Laforet wrote: | 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. | wilsonnb3 wrote: | 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. | monkpit wrote: | I don't see how you would consider Destiny a single | player FPS? | dj_mc_merlin wrote: | 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. | jacooper wrote: | 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. | filoleg wrote: | A tiny nitpick - Horizon Zero Dawn and God of War (not | the recent sequel that just came out) aren't console | exclusives anymore (but have been for the longest time), | you can buy both of them on Steam now. | HDThoreaun wrote: | RTS is dead because sc2/aoe2 are unbeatable. There's just | nowhere else to go with the genre. | cogman10 wrote: | 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. | Gigachad wrote: | 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. | p1necone wrote: | AoE4 is actually pretty good too. The change to make | walls only destroyable by siege weapons changes up the | dynamics in an interesting way. | _JoRo wrote: | walls are boring :)~ | _JoRo wrote: | 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 :) | BlueTemplar wrote: | 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 | 15155 wrote: | 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. | ThatPlayer wrote: | 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. | Aerroon wrote: | 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. | Barrin92 wrote: | 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. | josephd79 wrote: | 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. | ntw1103 wrote: | There is a co-op mod available for Elden Ring that works | reasonably well. I've been playing through it with a | friend. | leidenfrost wrote: | 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. | bombcar wrote: | MOBAs you can just watch. RTS you often need a good | commenter or a really decent strategic understanding of | the game. | mesh wrote: | 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. | bombcar wrote: | 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. | monkpit wrote: | 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. | kcb wrote: | With MOBAs you can blame your teammates when you lose. | RTSs are mostly played 1v1. | [deleted] | cogman10 wrote: | 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. | whatshisface wrote: | 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. | cogman10 wrote: | > 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. | whatshisface wrote: | I can think of a lot of different ones... | squeaky-clean wrote: | 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. | whatshisface wrote: | 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. | JadoJodo wrote: | Does SC2 do rank based matchmaking? | plushpuffin wrote: | 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. | babypuncher wrote: | > 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. | bombcar wrote: | 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. | kraig911 wrote: | 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. | Camillo wrote: | 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. | AlexandrB wrote: | 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. | AgentME wrote: | 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. | a_t48 wrote: | Instead of lootboxes, we have $/time locked heroes. :( | mrkramer wrote: | How about congress passing a law which prohibits M&A of big | companies because this is getting ridiculous. | Kukumber wrote: | 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." | haskellandchill wrote: | 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. | jesuspiece wrote: | Im totally in support of stopping monopolies but idk guys, | Blizzard sucks so much now I kinda want to see MSFT fix it lol | ipaddr wrote: | More likely this lower msft quality. | bheadmaster wrote: | Microsoft managed to ruin Nokia, so there's not much of a | guarantee that things would go well. | hbn wrote: | 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. | bheadmaster wrote: | > 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. | Rebelgecko wrote: | 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. | squarefoot wrote: | 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. | asmor wrote: | 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. | gwill wrote: | 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. | mehlmao wrote: | 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. | activitypea wrote: | Well, it couldn't be worse with Kotick out of the picture. At | least Microsoft would let devs unionize | miiiiiike wrote: | 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. | qbasic_forever wrote: | 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. | jayd16 wrote: | Why is it different from any other business? Profit motive is | often at odds with product vision for pretty much everything. | kahrl wrote: | It's not. This just hit home for homie over here. | danaris wrote: | 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. | lokar wrote: | AAA games are more like hollywood blockbusters than games from | the old days. Massive budgets, lots of risk, etc | | Requires a different corporate structure | qbasic_forever wrote: | 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. | jnwatson wrote: | 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. | redblacktree wrote: | 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. | kedean wrote: | 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. | Gigachad wrote: | 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. | fhd2 wrote: | 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. | smoldesu wrote: | - employees all missed chance at FAANG-level job security | | - stock value down considerably | | - shareholders just lost their only chance at a decent buyout | | - just finished worst media cycle in recent history | | What's left for Activision Blizzard? What can they do with a | company this gutted? | | Edit: This is a sincere question, I ask it as someone who enjoyed | Diablo, Overwatch and Hearthstone. Where do they go from here? | ocdtrekkie wrote: | FAANG-level job security doesn't get you much these days... | themoonisachees wrote: | Continue releasing games on wildly popular IPs. The games need | not be good, see for example diablo immortal. | smoldesu wrote: | Where will they get the money? | jacksnipe wrote: | See for example Diablo Immortal. | FreezerburnV wrote: | 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. | barkingcat wrote: | 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. | nixass wrote: | Not only immortal but all Diablo games released after D2 LOD | solardev wrote: | Make NFT Call of Duty skins? | barkingcat wrote: | 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. | fredoralive wrote: | 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. | someweirdperson wrote: | FIFA is Elctronic Arts, not Activision-Blizzard. And EA just | did that, no more FIFA beyond FIFA 2023. | my_usernam3 wrote: | > What's left for Activision Blizzard? What can they do with a | company this gutted? | | Amazing IP! The loud minority hates every new game/expansion | with a passion everything, but the majority of people I talked | to enjoy playing overwatch 2, enjoy the new wow expansion, and | most importantly we'd all (begrudgingly) buy any new | warcraft/starcraft/diablo/overwatch game. | HideousKojima wrote: | 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. | buzzerbetrayed wrote: | 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. | my_usernam3 wrote: | 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. | coding123 wrote: | 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. | pwthornton wrote: | 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. | eloff wrote: | 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. | hbn wrote: | > 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. | eloff wrote: | 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. | Sakos wrote: | 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. | lkramer wrote: | 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. | activitypea wrote: | Bungie's ARR blows Bethesda's revenue out of the water. | hbn wrote: | 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. | Hamuko wrote: | > _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. | jessicas_rabbit wrote: | "Today we seek to stop Microsoft from gaining control over a | leading independent game studio..." | mushufasa wrote: | 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? | ocdtrekkie wrote: | 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. | CSMastermind wrote: | 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. | bsjaux628 wrote: | 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 | plopz wrote: | What do you mean by platforms? | arrosenberg wrote: | 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. | newguynewphone wrote: | which doesnt make sense since playstation has withheld more | content than any other platform and has more exclusives than | microsoft has ever had. | rodiger wrote: | Nothing with as much pull as CoD though. By the numbers | it's not even close | cjf4 wrote: | 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. | jgrowl wrote: | "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 | Karsteski wrote: | Good. Microsoft buying up every single game publisher they can | get their hands on is good for no one. | jmyeet wrote: | 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. | [deleted] | metacriticcap wrote: | 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) | bogwog wrote: | 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_ | haunter wrote: | 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 | coldpie wrote: | During the Fox acquisition by Disney, the FTC was majority | Republican. It is now majority Democrat. Elections matter! | unpopualropp wrote: | And Ticketmaster merged with Live Nation under the Obama | admin. Elections matter! | themadturk wrote: | 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. | newbie578 wrote: | 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. | that_guy_iain wrote: | 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. | fhd2 wrote: | 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. | buzzerbetrayed wrote: | What studios has Sony acquired that are in the same ballpark | as Activision? They are pretty huge. Are there any? Genuine | question. | that_guy_iain wrote: | As huge as Activision. None. But | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Studios they have | lots of medium size ones. | quartesixte wrote: | 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. | wnevets wrote: | > Ah yeah bust Disney buying up everything was okay? | | What has Disney bought up during the current administration? | emn13 wrote: | 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. | madelyn wrote: | Thank goodness. It's nice to see action here. | georgeburdell wrote: | I'm glad Bobby Kotick isn't getting out of his mess with a golden | parachute just yet. | [deleted] | markus_zhang wrote: | 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. | irusensei wrote: | 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.. | . | jbm wrote: | 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. | PeterCorless wrote: | But I was totally wanting Clippy as a questgiver in Ogrimmar. | LatteLazy wrote: | Off topic: I misread this as FTX Seeks to block... And was | shocked but weirdly not surprised... | reset-password wrote: | 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. | locallost wrote: | 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. | RajT88 wrote: | 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? | unpopularopp wrote: | Meanwhile Ticketmaster and Live Nation laughing their assess off | judge2020 wrote: | Maybe not for long - https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/06/taylor- | swift-ticketmaster-fi... | barbazoo wrote: | > Lawmakers have some questions for Live Nation's CEO ... | | > The House Energy and Commerce Committee penned a letter to | Michael Rapino Tuesday asking the executive to clarify ... | | > ... Ticketmaster could be slapped with fines ... | | This has zero teeth and won't change a single thing. It's | virtue signalling at best. | bombcar wrote: | I misread that as the "Department of Energy" and was | wondering if Ticketmaster was about to get nuked. | nerdjon wrote: | 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. | anikom15 wrote: | 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. | ARandumGuy wrote: | 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. | robswc wrote: | 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. | wdb wrote: | 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. | theandrewbailey wrote: | This deal was announced almost a year ago. Let this be another | example of governments being slow to react to things. | madrox wrote: | 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. | danbolt wrote: | 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._ | madrox wrote: | 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. | zapataband1 wrote: | Do Marianos | cactusplant7374 wrote: | 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. | CameronBanga wrote: | You wouldn't be happy to visit now then. :) | Mikeb85 wrote: | 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... | atlgator wrote: | 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). | kibwen wrote: | 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. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-08 23:00 UTC)