this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
230 points (97.1% liked)

Games

32368 readers
1396 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Microsoft’s purchase of Activision Blizzard may go ahead in the United States, as Judge Corley sees no danger of harming competition.

top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rhokwar@lemmy.world 80 points 1 year ago (4 children)

the judge ensures that it is clear that Microsoft’s intention is to bring the Call of Duty saga, and the rest of Activision’s content, to a greater number of consumers.

How can a judge be so naive?

[–] Dups@sh.itjust.works 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] BrokebackHampton@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

My head's soundtrack every time I read money

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s not naive, it’s the truth. They’re going to bring their games, including COD, to the switch, to steam, to mobile, and will keep releasing COD and other GaaS games on PS.

[–] LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

COD is already on Steam and mobile. The only new one there is Switch, which Kotick all but committed to making happen if Activision remained independent.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

COD isn't the only game that ABK make. I have no doubt Diablo etc will come to steam as well if the purchase goes through. Mobile is also new as well, not just switch, as well as nvidia streaming and the multitude of other streaming services.

[–] LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

COD was the example you chose to highlight... It's also pretty damn close to it, here.

Activision: basically a COD factory only. COD has its own mobile version. Blizzard: Diablo, Overwatch, WoW. OW1+2 are on everything except mobile already. WoW doesn't make sense to move beyond where it is. Diablo is on everything except Switch, and has its own mobile versions. Presumably the lack of a Switch release is a hardware issue, as D3 was on Switch.
King: mobile exclusively.

Other than COD on Switch, which again Kotick all but committed to, what new platforms can they bring their games to? I'm not seeing it.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Maybe I needed to be more specific - by mobile I mean xCloud. They'll be bringing the full console versions of those games to mobile devices via xCloud. I don't care about COD mobile or Diablo mobile, but I'll damn sure play MW2 or Diablo 4 via xCloud when I can't play on my console.

[–] WookieMunster@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

little green pieces of paper make you naive

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fingers crossed the CMA aren't swayed on it

[–] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why? You want continued dominance by Sony? How does that benefit the consumer?

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Taking over Activision and making CoD an exclusive down the line (I know the deal specifies not for a while, but it's clear as soon as that period is up they'll be making it an exclusive) is a negative move to combat that - it tries to combat dominance by introducing dominance

Microsoft should invest in their own exclusives to improve their own offering without affecting Sony, which would leave both in good positions, rather than taking offerings away from Sony which leaves both in mediocre positions.

[–] monk@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a 10 year deal. Sony can use that decade to invest in its own shooters like they used to with Killzone.

Sony refused to allow cross play for years, effectively making you buy a PS to play with your friends. They took cross platform MMOs like Destiny and made entire parts of it exclusive, stealing what should have been available to everyone who already paid.

Meanwhile Microsoft makes their stuff available on Steam, has nearly-full backcompat going back two decades, and gives me a path to play my games on phone.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago

Regulate Sony to not be so anti-competitive then, rather than turning Microsoft into them

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Making COD exclusive isn’t happening. It would be a terrible business decision, just like making minecraft exclusive would be. COD is the highest selling game every single year. It’s a game that is filled with micro transactions, so the more people playing it the better.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 year ago

But people will buy an XBox rather than a PS6/7 if they can't play CoD on the latter... It's not like people are already tied into a console 1-2 generations in the future, so this would influence what console people buy next.

With Minecraft most players play on PC and frankly taking it off Mac and Linux would make a lot of business sense for Microsoft, however as it's Java and how easily modifiable and portable Java programs are, they know people would just get it working anyway. The same does not apply for CoD, where nearly everyone plays on console, and a significant part of what console someone buys is what games they can play on it.

[–] Dups@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Holy shit that sucks. Good thing the Indi-games scene is doing so well. I don't really need the AAA publishers anymore.

[–] LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The good that can come from this (imo) is that unlike Activision, Microsoft discounts their games on Steam according to their age while Activision (historically) has been very stingy on sales of old Call of Duty games.

To my knowledge, there are zero Blizzard games on Steam. Microsoft has been open to putting new games on Steam (starting with the Halo: Master Chief Collection).

So if MS follows it's current practices with Activision/Blizzard games, it could be a good thing for gamers.

[–] FrankFrankson@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

In the short term maybe but in the long term it's just another corporation getting even bigger and swallowing up smaller corporations which doesn't work out well for consumers.

[–] Sheltac@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah I’m a bit fed up with cookie cutter design-by-committee experiences anyway. I hate how they skirt around anything meaningful for absolute fear of ever offending anyone in the slightest.

[–] saucyloggins@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago
[–] uglytruck@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

I personally see this as bad. Look at all the local television stations getting bought up and have become "message deliverers". There are only few companies that own the majority and have decided that delivering local news is secondary to deploying a message. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo]

[–] JakDaniels69@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I want all the the people responsible for the sexual harassment out of there as soon as that takeover is complete,Activision has needed a major change in management. Also happy that Sony's arguments didn't work considering they do the same things they accuse Microsoft of doing

[–] WarpScanner@lemmy.fmhy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

I know people dislike mergers for good reason but in all honesty I've been wanting this to just go through just so I can know whether they boot Kotick out. If they don't... boo.

I don't have any interest in CoD anymore. There are a few IPs I'd like to see explored though that Activision has been sitting on and ignoring. And some that Activision "might" own that they've been too lazy to check but still threaten to litigate if it turns out that they do own (No One Lives Forever).

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Didn't the UK reject it though? What happened there?

[–] zsdfgn@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

They announced that they're negotiating a deal with Microsoft. They'll get some new small concession for PR purposes, but it's clear this deal is 100% going to happen in the next week.

[–] guidedlight@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

CMA have just agreed to negotiate with Microsoft. It sounds like the UK approval is forthcoming too.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/11/23791149/microsoft-activision-blizzard-uk-regulators-cma-appeal

[–] strepto@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Pretty shit news.

[–] Gt5@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can someone help me to understand why this is a bad (or good) thing. In my mind, Activision is huge - I'm having a hard time understanding what the difference will be here?

[–] timespace@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Xbox exclusivity.

[–] tallwookie@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I kinda want to play a Microsoft flight sim/WoW mashup

[–] charlybones@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While I agree that in the end this is probably not good in the long run, I do hope they do something with the state of Call of Duty, activision has killed the franchise. Just look at the latest warzone / MW player count.

I used to enjoy playing with my friends. But the game is so broken.

I do think Phil Schiller is a good guy, let’s hope this doesn’t go sideways.

Maybe I’m being naive… only time will tell.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

activision has killed the franchise. Just look at the latest warzone / MW player count.

COD MWII is one of the franchises biggest selling titles, and Warzone is an absolute smash hit. What are you talking about? MWII is the second most played game on xbox live, behind only fortnite.