So, it looks like the Microsoft-Activision merger is actually going
through. After spending $69* billion, and fighting off an FTC and UK
lawsuit trying to block it, Microsoft has finally won.

Which, honestly, surprised me. I really thought that - whether it was
in the UK, the EU or the USA - one of those lawsuits would have put
the kibosh on the whole deal. Because consolidations like this never
end up benefiting the end-user, and Microsoft has already gotten in
trouble for its monopoly position (albeit, back then with operating
systems) before. Surely, I thought, one of those regulatory agencies
would see sense. Silly me.

Some people, of course, point to Sony and use that company's massive
influence as an excuse for this merger. But if the problem is that
Sony has too much power over the market, the answer isn't to create
another software kaiju to stomp all over the industry. Others are
hopeful that this merger means that Kotick - and indeed, all of the
ActiBlizzard C-levels - get a well-deserved boot to the curb. And
while Kotick is indeed out (with a 300 million golden parachute), it
is unlikely all the people behind the more atrocious stories at the
Activision/Blizzard will be culled.

Microsoft itself is mostly interested in the merger for the mobile
side of things; Activision is one of the largest mobile gaming
companies in the world, and Microsoft was particularly weak in this
area. But this merger also greatly strengthens the company's influence
on the PC and console side of things too. The company has made a
pledge not to make its biggest franchises exclusive to its platforms
for 10 years... but that's actually not that long a time, and anyway,
a violation of this agreement would take years to litigate and likely
only result in a pittance of a penalty.

As a PC gamer, I look at this merger with trepidation: Microsoft would
love to dominate the market, and now - with Bethesda, Activision,
Blizzard and Halo all under their aegis - they have a very impressive
stable of games. Should Microsoft - in a year or five - decide to yank
all these games off Steam, this would have a much better chance of
succeeding than EA, Ubisoft, or Epic ever did. They would have an
instant audience of hundreds of millions... and that's before taking
into account any marketing gimmicks, like attracting people with free
games or year-long free access to their streaming service.

As much issue as I take with Steam at times, Valve has been - largely
- a good, hands-off caretaker for PC gaming, more interested in
competing in the merits of their platform than gaming the system. I've
no confidence in Microsoft being the same (especially not after
ActiBlizzard C-levels infiltrate their gaming division).

This merger isn't the end of PC gaming... but neither is it anything
to celebrate either. The video game industry needs MORE players, not
fewer.

* nice! (tongue-click/wink)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>
>
>So, it looks like the Microsoft-Activision merger is actually going
>through. After spending $69* billion, and fighting off an FTC and UK
>lawsuit trying to block it, Microsoft has finally won.
<snip>

So, Go Go MicroBlizActiSoft!

If only they'll be as inept as Gadget.

Xocyll

On 2023-10-13, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So, it looks like the Microsoft-Activision merger is actually going
> through. After spending $69* billion, and fighting off an FTC and UK
> lawsuit trying to block it, Microsoft has finally won.
>
> /snip/
>
> This merger isn't the end of PC gaming... but neither is it anything
> to celebrate either. The video game industry needs MORE players, not
> fewer.

Thanks for a great summary as usual of this situation. I'm only reading
about this via your posts. I don't think I play many of the affected
games /currently/. Will be interesting to see how this plays out and how
having three (MS, Sony, Nintendo) big players in the market pan out.

--
Don't be afraid of the deep...
--[ bbs.bottomlessabyss.net | https | telnet=2023 ]--
--[ /query geeknix on libera.chat | tilde.chat ]--

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 08:30:04 GMT, Geeknix
<usenet@apple.geeknix135.net> wrote:

>On 2023-10-13, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, it looks like the Microsoft-Activision merger is actually going
>> through. After spending $69* billion, and fighting off an FTC and UK
>> lawsuit trying to block it, Microsoft has finally won.
>>
>> /snip/
>>
>> This merger isn't the end of PC gaming... but neither is it anything
>> to celebrate either. The video game industry needs MORE players, not
>> fewer.
>
>Thanks for a great summary as usual of this situation. I'm only reading
>about this via your posts. I don't think I play many of the affected
>games /currently/. Will be interesting to see how this plays out and how
>having three (MS, Sony, Nintendo) big players in the market pan out.

Gosh, I hope you come across a more reliable source of news than me!
Although, seeing as this news is plastered across pretty much every
gaming website (and featured in many 'real media' websites too) I
doubt that will be a problem. ;-)

But, you're right. You may not see any immediate changes from this
merger. Myself, I long weaned myself off Activision's teat, partly
because I just found the company too scummy to support, but more
because they really don't make games that I enjoy. It's harder with
Microsoft - what with their buying Bethesda and Id Software - but they
aren't majorly featured in any of my new game purchases.

Still, it is hard not to look at this merger with some trepidation.
Microsoft has become a massive force in the gaming industry (much more
so than they already were), and they have the means and the desire to
use this influence to their own benefit. They've made attempts to push
their way into the digital sales market (remember the Windows App
store?) but never quite had the clout - despite their Windows OS
dominance - to convince a large enough audience to make the
switch-over from Steam. Now... they just might.

We, in fact, may already be seeing some movements in this area, with
reports that Activision/Blizzard games may soon be appearing on
Ubisoft's UPlay streaming service. This is doubly beneficial to
Microsoft, since not only does it bring in some added cash from the
licensing deal, but it helps to chip away at Valve's dominance of the
PC gaming market.

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist with an already overwhelming
amount of control over the PC industry. It shouldn't have been allowed
to increase its clout.

On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:46:56 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>The company has made a
>pledge not to make its biggest franchises exclusive to its platforms
>for 10 years... but that's actually not that long a time

Perhaps. 1990-2000 was forever in PC Gaming. 10 years is long enough that
the CoD franchise could even collapse by then, and there will certainly
be alternatives. Bliz is not doing so great; it has the same story: there
will be alternatives.

So maybe we just get to kiss off MS Bliztervision in 5 years and look
elsewhere. Maybe it eats itself alive. Do you play anything released by
that particular chimera? I sure don't.

I'm much more concerned about MS taking a hard line on the Windows Store
and gaming. If they get big enough to feel they have a viable independent
gaming ecosystem they may try to mandate exclusive use of their Store. At
that point, it's time for an antitrust lawsuit to break their gaming arm
off of the OS arm.

Or just break someone's arm. Whichever works best.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Fri, 13 Oct 2023 13:46:56 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>So, it looks like the Microsoft-Activision merger is actually going
>through. After spending $69* billion, and fighting off an FTC and UK
>lawsuit trying to block it, Microsoft has finally won.
>
>Which, honestly, surprised me. I really thought that - whether it was
>in the UK, the EU or the USA - one of those lawsuits would have put
>the kibosh on the whole deal. Because consolidations like this never
>end up benefiting the end-user, and Microsoft has already gotten in
>trouble for its monopoly position (albeit, back then with operating
>systems) before. Surely, I thought, one of those regulatory agencies
>would see sense. Silly me.
>
>Some people, of course, point to Sony and use that company's massive
>influence as an excuse for this merger. But if the problem is that
>Sony has too much power over the market, the answer isn't to create
>another software kaiju to stomp all over the industry. Others are
>hopeful that this merger means that Kotick - and indeed, all of the
>ActiBlizzard C-levels - get a well-deserved boot to the curb. And
>while Kotick is indeed out (with a 300 million golden parachute), it
>is unlikely all the people behind the more atrocious stories at the
>Activision/Blizzard will be culled.
>
>Microsoft itself is mostly interested in the merger for the mobile
>side of things; Activision is one of the largest mobile gaming
>companies in the world, and Microsoft was particularly weak in this
>area. But this merger also greatly strengthens the company's influence
>on the PC and console side of things too. The company has made a
>pledge not to make its biggest franchises exclusive to its platforms
>for 10 years... but that's actually not that long a time, and anyway,
>a violation of this agreement would take years to litigate and likely
>only result in a pittance of a penalty.
>
>As a PC gamer, I look at this merger with trepidation: Microsoft would
>love to dominate the market, and now - with Bethesda, Activision,
>Blizzard and Halo all under their aegis - they have a very impressive
>stable of games. Should Microsoft - in a year or five - decide to yank
>all these games off Steam, this would have a much better chance of
>succeeding than EA, Ubisoft, or Epic ever did. They would have an
>instant audience of hundreds of millions... and that's before taking
>into account any marketing gimmicks, like attracting people with free
>games or year-long free access to their streaming service.
>
>As much issue as I take with Steam at times, Valve has been - largely
>- a good, hands-off caretaker for PC gaming, more interested in
>competing in the merits of their platform than gaming the system. I've
>no confidence in Microsoft being the same (especially not after
>ActiBlizzard C-levels infiltrate their gaming division).
>
>This merger isn't the end of PC gaming... but neither is it anything
>to celebrate either. The video game industry needs MORE players, not
>fewer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>* nice! (tongue-click/wink)
>

*--

I didn't know that Blizzard was part of the deal. Are they part of
Activision?

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-finalizes-dollar69-billion-activision-blizzard-acquisition?lrh=e475157eecb7dd5a143f7c36aea0032717f5d2d16d286111a58b04424ffe30f4

-pw

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 10:51:50 -0600, PW
<iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:

>I didn't know that Blizzard was part of the deal. Are they part of
>Activision?
>
>https://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-finalizes-dollar69-billion-activision-blizzard-acquisition?lrh=e475157eecb7dd5a143f7c36aea0032717f5d2d16d286111a58b04424ffe30f4

ABK is a combined company that includes Activision + Blizzard + King.

So, yes, Microsoft gets all three. Activision gives them, among other
things, "Call of Duty" (which terrifies Sony), Blizzard (which still
dominates MMORPGs), and King (which owns Candy Crush and a big chunk
of the mobile gaming market). It is a massive gain for Microsoft.

On 10/14/23 08:34, Zaghadka wrote:
> I'm much more concerned about MS taking a hard line on the Windows Store
> and gaming. If they get big enough to feel they have a viable independent
> gaming ecosystem they may try to mandate exclusive use of their Store. At
> that point, it's time for an antitrust lawsuit to break their gaming arm
> off of the OS arm.
>
> Or just break someone's arm. Whichever works best.
>

I am very worried that the Windows Store will start getting more exclusives.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 16:35:52 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Oct 2023 10:51:50 -0600, PW
><iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:
>
>>I didn't know that Blizzard was part of the deal. Are they part of
>>Activision?
>>
>>https://www.tomshardware.com/news/microsoft-finalizes-dollar69-billion-activision-blizzard-acquisition?lrh=e475157eecb7dd5a143f7c36aea0032717f5d2d16d286111a58b04424ffe30f4
>
>ABK is a combined company that includes Activision + Blizzard + King.
>
>So, yes, Microsoft gets all three. Activision gives them, among other
>things, "Call of Duty" (which terrifies Sony), Blizzard (which still
>dominates MMORPGs), and King (which owns Candy Crush and a big chunk
>of the mobile gaming market). It is a massive gain for Microsoft.
>
>
>
>

*--

Yes, seems like a no brainer.

Thanks,

-pw

On 13/10/2023 18:46, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>
> So, it looks like the Microsoft-Activision merger is actually going
> through. After spending $69* billion, and fighting off an FTC and UK
> lawsuit trying to block it, Microsoft has finally won.
>
> Which, honestly, surprised me. I really thought that - whether it was
> in the UK, the EU or the USA - one of those lawsuits would have put
> the kibosh on the whole deal. Because consolidations like this never
> end up benefiting the end-user, and Microsoft has already gotten in
> trouble for its monopoly position (albeit, back then with operating
> systems) before. Surely, I thought, one of those regulatory agencies
> would see sense. Silly me.
>
> Some people, of course, point to Sony and use that company's massive
> influence as an excuse for this merger. But if the problem is that
> Sony has too much power over the market, the answer isn't to create
> another software kaiju to stomp all over the industry. Others are
> hopeful that this merger means that Kotick - and indeed, all of the
> ActiBlizzard C-levels - get a well-deserved boot to the curb. And
> while Kotick is indeed out (with a 300 million golden parachute), it
> is unlikely all the people behind the more atrocious stories at the
> Activision/Blizzard will be culled.
>
> Microsoft itself is mostly interested in the merger for the mobile
> side of things; Activision is one of the largest mobile gaming
> companies in the world, and Microsoft was particularly weak in this
> area. But this merger also greatly strengthens the company's influence
> on the PC and console side of things too. The company has made a
> pledge not to make its biggest franchises exclusive to its platforms
> for 10 years... but that's actually not that long a time, and anyway,
> a violation of this agreement would take years to litigate and likely
> only result in a pittance of a penalty.
>
> As a PC gamer, I look at this merger with trepidation: Microsoft would
> love to dominate the market, and now - with Bethesda, Activision,
> Blizzard and Halo all under their aegis - they have a very impressive
> stable of games. Should Microsoft - in a year or five - decide to yank
> all these games off Steam, this would have a much better chance of
> succeeding than EA, Ubisoft, or Epic ever did. They would have an
> instant audience of hundreds of millions... and that's before taking
> into account any marketing gimmicks, like attracting people with free
> games or year-long free access to their streaming service.
>
> As much issue as I take with Steam at times, Valve has been - largely
> - a good, hands-off caretaker for PC gaming, more interested in
> competing in the merits of their platform than gaming the system. I've
> no confidence in Microsoft being the same (especially not after
> ActiBlizzard C-levels infiltrate their gaming division).
>
> This merger isn't the end of PC gaming... but neither is it anything
> to celebrate either. The video game industry needs MORE players, not
> fewer.
>

Is it good for the games industry as a whole, not really no. Is it going
to have any practical effect on my gaming experience, that's another no.
Indeed it could be a positive in that the big companies think why aren't
we focusing more on mobile gaming and the pots of cash available.