Microsoft can now go ahead and close its giant deal.

  • Neato@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a loss for consumers. Massive consolidation, lack of competition. Get ready for them to pull games from PlayStation as soon as they are contractually allowed to. Get ready for everything to be on Game Pass and possibly not on Steam. Worst case: they disable purchasing some games on Game Pass so you always need a subscription.

    • ampersandrew@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago
      1. They (both Microsoft and ActiBlizz) pulled games from Steam before, and they’re both back on Steam well ahead of this deal. I don’t see why that would change.
      2. We’ve now seen through court documents and transcripts what many of us suspected in that many of these games and studios that Microsoft purchased for exclusivity were Sony targets for exclusivity as well, so if we had to pick one, the company trailing in the market sounds like the better one to get them as exclusives.
      3. I can only see this as better for competition than Sony running away with the high-end console market, because then there’s realistically only one console to buy.
      4. All that said about the above, fuck exclusivity in general.
      • TwilightVulpine@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I see a lot of people using argument #2 and it’s really short-sighted to treat acquisition the same as exclusivity deals. However much I don’t like either, acquisitions are clearly worse. If you had to pick one, why would you wouldn’t just leave it as case-by-case exclusivity deals?

        Say, SquareEnix and Atlus are fully capable of releasing games for other consoles even with all the exclusives they release for Playstation. And nothing stopped Microsoft from waving a wad of cash their way to change their minds.

        There is absolutely no way such a large acquisition will be better for competition. The publishers become unable to make their own platform decisions, no matter what benefits there are. You are losing sight of the market as a whole and the independence of studios by focusing exclusively on who gets the #1 console crown.

      • asteroidrainfall@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are people who would be okay if it were Sony making the acquisition, but I want to believe that most people who are against it feel that no large company should be allowed to buy another large company.

        It’s like, does no one remember what Microsoft did in the 90s? They were literally forbidding PC manufacturers from not selling any systems that didn’t include windows.

        This deal is bad. It rewards shitty individuals and shitty companies, and hurts consumers and employees. This deal will be a calendar marker of when the gaming industry started to fall. Like when Disney bought Marvel and LucasArts.

      • MoogleMaestro@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        They (both Microsoft and ActiBlizz) pulled games from Steam before, and they’re both back on Steam well ahead of this deal. I don’t see why that would change.

        There’s a lot of tangible reasons for Microsoft to pull the plug on Steam game sales.

        1. They want to focus Microsoft products as “Cloud-First” wherever possible, and selling copies on Steam hurts this initiative.
        2. They would probably prefer to not give Valve 30% revenue on every game sold for IPs that they own and have their own means of distribution (and even more now that they own Battle.Net) For all businesses, this is simply a case of maximizing profits.
        3. They aren’t happy that Valve are essentially letting people run native windows applications on non-windows platforms.
        4. They view the Steam Deck as a potential competitor to the Xbox or other mobile game initiatives they might have.
        5. They would still love it if we all used Windows Store for downloads wherever possible, which is why they have lately been streamlining the process of getting products on that storefront.

        Those are reasons. I don’t know if they would actually follow through and there are reasons for them to not do it, but every decision is a case of weighing the negatives and the positives. It really depends on if Microsoft cares about the public perception of forcing people to use their own store or not. Currently, they do care about forcing people onto clients, but that might not always be the case forever.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They did care about people using their own store, and it was an undeniable failure, which is why they’re back on Steam, where they make more money. They’d have to decide to unlearn those lessons to take their games back off of Steam again.

      • Neato@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        so if we had to pick one,

        Did we, though? Or maybe FTC could prevent further consolidation that will eventually result (and is already) in anticompetitive practices?

        I can only see this as better for competition than Sony running away with the high-end console market, because then there’s realistically only one console to buy.

        So now your choices will be: 1) pick the console that has more of your favorite games, or 2) now you have to buy BOTH consoles.

        Fucking brilliant.

          • Neato@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Competition means there’s choice. Segregating titles that were once across multiple platforms (choice) into individual platforms (no choice) is anti-competitive.

            I can’t really break it down more than that and I thought this was obvious…

            • ampersandrew@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              You do have choice. You have choice between group of exclusives A and group of exclusives B. It’s better for competition but worse for the consumer. In order for it to be better for the consumer and competition, you’d need to eliminate the concept of exclusives entirely. And I’m all for that, but I don’t know how to make that happen.

              • thoro@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well since exclusives will continue to exist, imagine if, hear me out here, third party titles remained cross platform and group B developed their own set of games at worst through infant studio acquisitions instead of, idk, acquiring the second largest third party publisher in the world (and thus all their studios).

          • Hdcase@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Microsoft creates demand for their system largely by buying up publishers and turning all their future games exclusive, that would otherwise have been multiplatform.

            Sony and Nintendo create demand for their system largely by making great games in house, that otherwise never would have existed.

            So yes you’re right but one is much shittier than the other.

            • ampersandrew@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The games made in house are functionally identical to buying a studio that already existed. It’s a game that can’t be played anywhere else for arbitrary business reasons. I’d consider Sony’s shittier, because I have to wait two years for a PC port, and Nintendo’s shittier still because those games will never legally leave their platform.

        • Katana314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The “pick one” mentality may come from the inherent freedom of Activision’s owners. They don’t see any further way for the publisher to grow, so they seek the next logical outcome for themselves: Acquisition. That’s always going to come from a company large enough to be a major force in video games.

          “Pick neither” is telling them they are not allowed to do anything with their company.

          • Neato@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            They could grow by making more games that sell well. More offshoot studios so they can have more parallel production.

            If the ONLY way they can grow is to consolidate, then they are as big as they are going to get then. Tough titties. They have a minor duty to shareholders to turn a profit, not to grow at all costs. That’s the problem with current capitalism and will lead to effective monopolies.

            • EvaUnit02@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m opposed to this acquisition but let’s be clear: Activision doesn’t have a “minor duty to shareholders”. They have a fiduciary duty to shareholders.

    • ArugulaZ@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah, I don’t see things this way. Microsoft has been generous with its IP, in contrast to Sony, which keeps its games (and third party games, as was the case with Street Fighter 5) exclusive. Microsoft has licensed its biggest titles to the Switch and even the Playstation 4, and it has a history of cross-platform publishing that goes back decades. For instance, games in the Banjo-Kazooie series were released for the Game Boy Advance and Nintendo DS. There’s no reason to believe Microsoft will change that strategy, especially with the Xbox Series lagging so far behind its competitors in sales.

      If Microsoft suddenly tightens the reins on its IP, consumers will spite them for it. After the Xbox One debacle, they know better than to force unwanted changes to the status quo of this industry.

  • Sabata11792@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    With how shitty Blizzard has been the past few years, this may be a positive. I’m not saying I trust Microsoft but I certainly don’t trust Blizzard to anything outside of Warcraft anymore. They even mess that up every other expansion.