I support this because MS is already huge (Windows, Office, Xbox) and Activision/Blizzard is huge.
There is already way too much centralization. EA owns too much. Honestly there may be some Sony shouldn’t have been allowed to acquire (I don’t keep track on either side).
So MS + Activision is just too centralized for me. If the argument is “we need this to compete with EA” then we should break up EA.
I 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.
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.
But I don’t like just flat out consolidation of already large companies. I don’t see a benefit (to gamers) in that. Just investors/business people.
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.
1. Opened a MSN.net account in early 00's. Fake name/birthday provided as is the norm for the day and only email validation was required at the time.
2. Opened a Skype account in early 00's. Fake name/birthday information provided as is the norm for the day and only email validation was required at the time.
3. Microsoft merged Skype and MSN.net
4. Bought a Surface Pro in early 10's and that required a Microsoft account. Hated it and returned it, but now there's a CC and name associated with the account.
5. Account was hacked in mid 10's. Lost access.
6. Recovery workflow now involves "verifying" questions and answers that were never a part of the sign-up workflow, and secondary workflow involves "verifying" fake name/birthday information that's long since forgotten, or verifying purchases and prices and CC numbers (which have since changed), or verification of email.
7. Verification of email isn't enough because it's not a second factor. Want more verification.
8. MS phone support refuses to help, and brick & mortar staff have no capability to recover accounts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_video_game_console_genera...
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.
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.
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)
The usual cause for something like this is that management is incentivizing for something that isn't quality. Velocity is the normal one that gets people, but there are a few others that occasionally get people (number of open tickets/lack of outrage on social media/etc).
It is, of course, possible that the team is incompetent, but that's usually an easier problem to fix, and if the team has had normal turnover, the odds of them having consistently incompetent ICs for years on end is pretty low.
There's already way, way, way too much consolidation in industry today (not just "the games industry"; all of industry). What we need to be doing is breaking up many of these megacorporations, and then reversing the burden of proof for mergers & acquisitions: not "we'll stop this if it's proven that it would be harmful," but "we won't allow this unless it's proven to be beneficial", with a fairly high bar.
It just seems so absurd to me to see so many people who trumpet the power of the "free market", but then advocate for this kind of hyper-consolidated situation as if it's remotely like a "free market". Yes, sure, I can buy my $thing from Oppressive Megacorp A, B, or C, all of whom have a huge interest in maintaining the status quo and avoiding meaningful competition.
There are on the order of 10 video game companies with over a billion usd in revenue. There are 3 distinct console manufacturers (4 if you count the steam deck, 5 if you include PCs). Then there’s the mobile gaming market, which has all the big players plus a bunch of others.
Duopoly’s and small markets goodness or badness is irrelevant in this situation.
It'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.
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...
everyone with multiple accounts will have logged in on each at least once to get the three new heroes
this is over forever now
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.
I don't find this to be the case at all. SONY is market leader in consoles because they've been doing a better job. Microsoft cross-funding their way into a monopoly wouldn't make MS decision making any better, would it?
As an extreme example: Imagine MS buying out all major game studios in 2013 (they certainly have had the money to do it). You -- as the consumer -- would've either been stuck with a console that made every wrong decision, but has every game on it. Or a console made with better decisions but with no games. How is preventing this a handout to the market leader?
I just don't see this merger moving the needle much on the competition between the two companies.
I just don't understand how this merger would be even entertained by the FCC. The only reason MS is lagging behind Sony is because of their own incompetence (outside of Japan). Allowing this much of a cross funding to offset incompetence shouldn't event be on the table.
Pre-orders on Steam turned into Epic exclusive caused an uproar. It came out on Steam a year later and I waited another year after that, then waited for a sale.
And got a patched, polished game with mods - fun for co-op with friends.
I don't think my "protest delayed" purchase 2+ years later made an impact on them. But it sated me.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
Sounds like the FTC does not trust Microsoft’s assurances.