Microsoft buys Activision/Blizzard for $70B

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,890
12,427
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2010
2,408
1,018
118

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,524
5,783
118
Australia
Except, Engadget, I don't have an icky feeling hearing about this merger. Like at all. Presumptuous fucks.

This appears to be a report by Jason Schreier

They are right to fear lay offs, because even if Activision wasn't up to its neck in shit, those would occur if only because of the redundant staff in most corporate sections that MS won't need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
May 13, 2009
7,413
1,994
118
Country
USA
I thought Atari was making crypto currency these days.
I'd not heard that!

Atari actually was developing a new console. It cost something like $400 to play what looked to be 1990 gen games.

But I think this article encapsulates what I think is really going on, especially when you factor in things like "Game Pass". As an old guy with a ton of games collected over the last 25 years (pre PS3 I mostly gave away as I have been gaming at home since early 1980s) it doesn't make that much sense. Might be famous last words but I don't think I'll ever run out of things to play. But if I were just entering my teens and didn't have much of a collection? I don't know I'd even buy a console. Get a controller, play on my smart phone. Maybe connect a laptop to my TV when I want to play on it. Though, can smart TVs with an Xbox app be far behind? You can mirror from phone to TV but I think lag would kill that idea.

Plugging a Samsung phone into a TV/Monitor hooked up to keyboard mouse can also provide a desktop like experience. Dunno if they'll make an Xbox app for that, but if they do, you wouldn't even need a laptop to hook up to your TV.

 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Nov 18, 2010
8,738
5,910
118
On one hand, I knowing yet more of the industry is being considered and monopolized under a few mega corps feels like we're steadily creeping closer to the cyberpunk dystopia scenario(with environmental collapse to boot). OTOH, I barely play AAA games anymore, A/B is garbage and MS can hardly do any worse at this point with it, so on a personal gaming level I'll barely notice. I think I play like 1 or 2 current AAA games per year at best at this point with the rest being older games and indies.

Not to mitigate the corporate bullshitery here, just that I've already written most of the AAA industry off as a money-grubbing, creatively sterile loss that it just feels like more of the same, just under fewer roofs.
On one hand I agree it won’t bother me much as I game on PC as much if not more now. On the other, this is already hurting Sony big time -


20 billion valuation lost just off the news alone. Less money for them means less money to make all the high quality, mostly single player only, MTX-free exclusives we’ve been seeing so far. I’d really resent Microsoft if that ever changed. Just looking back at how they’ve killed so many of their own studio’s projects just by being “them” doesn’t bode well even if they’d be more indirectly responsible here.


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 29, 2014
1,688
853
118
Country
Sweden
Interesting...


My thoughts are that part of the value in Call Of Duty is its massive userbase, which ensures that there is always someone to play with. By not releasing for non-Microsoft-platforms, the value of the brand is made smaller. And less relevant, since less people have reason to keep track of titles that they won't be able to play any way.

Then again exclusives DO sell consoles, so that might be an acceptable loss for Microsoft if it gets more people to buy Xboxes.

Sidenote: can an Xbox player face of against a Playstation player in a multiplayer Call of Duty match?

My prediction is that if Microsoft makes it an exclusive some other developer will jump with glee and develop a multiplatform title that takes the position as the dominant FPS multiplayer series. Maybe Battlefield or Titanfall can take it's spot.

It also wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft themselves haven't decided yet what to do.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,284
6,568
118
I’m still hoping for a new fallout game from obsidian. They can make a title while Bethesda is busy with star field and elder scrolls 6.
You won't get it. They've clearly made Outer Worlds as their own IP to scratch that itch. Outer Worlds is, whilst not post-apocalyptic, still the same sort of feel and jokes.

And besides, Obsidian would need the Fallout licence from Bethesda: Bethesda won't give it to anyone for the same reason they won't use it themselves.
 

Fallen Soldier

Brother Lombax
Oct 28, 2021
518
517
98
Country
United States
You won't get it. They've clearly made Outer Worlds as their own IP to scratch that itch. Outer Worlds is, whilst not post-apocalyptic, still the same sort of feel and jokes.

And besides, Obsidian would need the Fallout licence from Bethesda: Bethesda won't give it to anyone for the same reason they won't use it themselves.
Even though Obsidian and Bethesda are apart of the same company now?
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,284
6,568
118
Even though Obsidian and Bethesda are apart of the same company now?
Firstly, I believe whilst Obsidian is a division of Microsoft, Bethesda is a subsidiary - which means that although Microsoft owns Bethesda, it is technically still a separate company. Microsoft could of course force its Bethesda subsidiary to sell / hand over the IP, but...

More to the point though is that if Bethesda made more money from not releasing a single player Fallout game whilst '76 is active, then the same logic holds true for Microsoft as owner of Bethesda. They can make Fallout 5 and earn $$$ when it suits them, but there's no point killing their online Fallout early when it's earning them $$$.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,176
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
More to the point though is that if Bethesda made more money from not releasing a single player Fallout game whilst '76 is active, then the same logic holds true for Microsoft as owner of Bethesda. They can make Fallout 5 and earn $$$ when it suits them, but there's no point killing their online Fallout early when it's earning them $$$.
Why would they be mutually exclusive though?

Like, to pivot to another RPG series, Final Fantasy 11 and 14 didn't stop non-MMO entries from being made.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
29,890
12,427
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male



Uh-huh...
 

Fallen Soldier

Brother Lombax
Oct 28, 2021
518
517
98
Country
United States



Uh-huh...
The most idiotic member in congress is also corrupt? What a shocker!
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,284
6,568
118
Why would they be mutually exclusive though?
Online games like '76 and ES are heavily played by people who loved the single-player games. If they release single player games, the player base for their online games will disappear for a substantial amount of time whilst they consume the new single player product. These single-player games are big: we could be talking months that people aren't playing the MMO.

This will lead to a substantial loss of income in the short-term - and also potentially long-term, because losing a large chunk of players could undermine confidence in the game, make it less interesting for other players who consequently leave, nor is there a guarantee the players who pop off to do the single player will come back to the MMO. It is not a guarantee it will damage their MMO of course: but it is a very credible risk. To give some idea of cost, WoW is exceptional, and reckoned to make ~$1 billion a year in revenue. Something like ESO or Fallout '76 much less, but I'd guess potentially up to $100 million a year. That doesn't need to go down much to cost a great deal of potential income, especially if it does have a long-term effect across years or shortens the MMO lifespan.

There could be other issues involved - staff limitations (they need to work on one or the other - making the single player could pause some development of the MMO again with potential loss of interest), marketing confusion with two games under the same brand, etc.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
4,035
887
118
Country
United States
Why do they hate single-player games? Because they want to control what we do in-game for money, and control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
7,595
1,914
118
Between There and There.
Country
The Wide, Brown One.
Why would they be mutually exclusive though?
They wouldn't.

The reason there won't be another Fallout for a long while is that Bethesda's core dev group is eyebrows deep in getting Starfield out the door and then will have to gear up for a full dev cycle on TES 6... and Obsidian's core dev team are busy with Outer Worlds 2 and apparently after that is a TES-like RPG set in the Pillars of Eternity universe. So unless another developer is brought in it's gonna be a long wait.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,176
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male

This deal is looking pretty at least.

(Yes, I know it's fanmade).