[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)