"Megacorporation Wins. Consumers lose again. "
Would be the correct title.
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
159 points (89.9% liked)
Games
32704 readers
1447 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:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Just curious, could you list tangile points which would lead to a loss for consumers?
The only thing I can think of is MSFT becoming evil and making everything shit and super expensive, in which case talent would leave to create new studios and customers would move to competitors where they would get a better deal. This is possible because in this industry any game can become a top seller (Vampire Survivors, Stardew Valley, BattleBit for e.g.) and there are competitors like Tencent, Sony, Nintendo, Rockstar, all succeeding without ABK games.
Here are some of the pros I can think of:
Getting access to ABK games under a subscription services gives cheaper access to games as long as the subscription fee is less than $70/quarter, assuming avg gamer buys CoD every year to play for 3 months. And when it becomes more expensive than that, avg gamer would simply buy the games like they currently do.
CoD on GeForce now for next 10 years makes cloud gaming more lucrative, and competitive given how poor xCloud is compared to GeForce Now.
Having CoD on Sony platforms for at least next 10 years leaves enough time for Sony to invest in first party shooters, something they had ignored for so long.
Xbox getting content and quality parity for CoD acts as a equilizer for all gamers, something which Sony was blocking so far with exclusivity contracts.
Microsoft getting some leverage over monopoly of App Store and Play Store to push for lower commisions or alternate stores on respective mobile OSes makes it better for all mobile devs by bringing competition.
AB games coming to steam also sounds like something PC gamers would like.
Microsoft potentially clearing the toxic culture at ABK and allowing unionisation only makes it a much safer and equal working place. It may not lead to high quality best seller games, but I guess ABK can benefit from lack of toxicity at cost of lack of profits.
Update: those who are downvoting, please do share your thoughts. I'm happy to learn more and update my perspective on this.
MSFT becoming evil
You are nearly 40 years late.
As someone who's been a Blizzard customer for 30 years roughly. Selling to Activision was a bad move from a customer perspective. Selling all that to Microsoft is utter bobbins. I 100% think Microsoft games division is currently less horrible than Bobby Kotik. It's a real; real low bar. But I know for a fact that as a customer I'd be much more satisfied if Blizzard was independent again and able to develop at their own pace and schedule. And not that of some distant detached greedy CEO focused on quarterly profits, and what they can cancel in the short term to boost them.
Also I have this controversial statement. There should be no locked down consoles or console exclusives for the last 20 years or so. They've all been one of 3 more or less common PC microarchitectures. Intel, PPC, and ARM. Hell before that they were largely Z80 or 6502 based. Those at least ran bare metal with fairly specialized configurations and timings. All the modern stuff largely runs on otherwise largely common commodity hardware with well-known APIs and back ends. Just artificially locked down.
We're not talking about the sale that started Blizzard into this mess though.
There's also a fair few consoles that have come out over the years and are not locked down. Steam Machines are a perfect example - and no one remembers them because they were too expensive. Why were they too expensive? Because they weren't being financed by exclusive products that drove people to the platform to cycle sales.
Even Steam basically made its inroads via exclusivity. When Half-Life 2 came out, it felt like a terrible forced piece of software that Valve was pushing. It's never been technical capability or CPU architecture that encouraged exclusivity - hell, half of Microsoft's good exclusives are made in Unity or Unreal, and some of them ended up getting easy Switch ports.
Actually, everyone is in love with steam machines currently. It took Valve a bit to find the right form factor and application. But they did get there. Have you heard of the steam deck? There have been other hand held PC systems before. But Valve released the definitive gaming one. And the software is there for other hardware manufacturers to use if they like.
And you're having some heavy misremembering of history there. Halflife 2 had Physical releases outside steam. The only console it was never on was Nintendo's. Having releases for PS2/3, OG Xbox and 360. As well as physical releases for Windows and Mac. Correct me if I'm wrong but steam has only ever been avalible for Windows Mac and Linux. So no, Valve didn't play exclusivity games.
If I were forced under duress to pick a gaming corporation as being the good one. Good and corporation are two words that generally don't go together. But Valve would be one of the closest. A generally flat socialist like company heirarchy. Largely platform agnostic. And has done more than any other company to reduce lockin. Their contributions to Wine and Proton are pivotal.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Hey Mister! Guess what?! You aren't wrong. And I agree. Carry on.
load more comments
(11 replies)
Bummer. This is terrible news for consumers and is really going to hurt competition. Microsoft has already shown that they're going as exclusive as possible with their recent acquisitions, so we can probably expect to never see any new Activision/Blizzard titles outside of Microsoft's ecosystem now, and that's a huge umbrella of content that the rest of players are going to miss out on.
Not necessarily.
The FTC did important work here even if it wasn't successful in the suit.
Microsoft got Zenimax and was then rather excessive in how they handled it, and that is a large part of what prompted this degree of pushback by regulatory bodies.
If Xbox wants to leave the door open for future acquisitions they are very much aware they need to tread carefully moving forward.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Zenimax titles end up as timed exclusives down the road rather than permanent exclusives as announced.
Similarly, Sony has set any of their own future acquisitions up for potential scrutiny if they continue down the path of total exclusively, and what's likely going to end up happening is each side plays their bargaining chips to end up with mutual releases after timed windows.
This is arguably better than Activision Blizzard ending up in the hands of Tencent and going even further in the direction of Diablo Immortal, and may even help curb future exclusivity across the industry.
(In general, first party studio ownership leads to better games and less microtransaction BS.)
Less exclusivity in the future may largely rest on the FTC and other regulatory bodies having aggressively pushed back on this here and now.
In trade regulation you don't need to necessarily win the fight to still have a net positive influence.
Microsoft got Zenimax and was then rather excessive in how they handled it, and that is a large part of what prompted this degree of pushback by regulatory bodies.
If Xbox wants to leave the door open for future acquisitions they are very much aware they need to tread carefully moving forward.
This reads like a rather optimistic take to me.
What Microsoft learned here is that they can buy a publisher (Bethesda), make that publisher's games exclusive, and still get the biggest gaming acquisition in history approved by regulators.
Microsoft will likely pause acquisitions for a bit, but everyone else that wants to get into/stay in gaming is going to look into them even more than before. I'd be surprised if Sony doesn't end up buying someone decently large (but not as large as Activision: Sony cannot afford anything like that). Everyone seems to think Sony would go for Square Enix but I think they would make a different choice.
Yes, Sony will very likely eye an acquisition (possibly even the one extensively rumoured over the years that isn't Square Enix), but that'd be to shore up their bargaining position over exclusivity.
The exclusivity fight, particularly if mutually assured destruction, isn't a winning bet long term.
There's an ebb and flow to this industry, and we've already seen under Jim Ryan the shift to PC ports after exclusivity windows.
Honestly, the biggest thing holding back Sony ports to Xbox is probably Microsoft's insistence on platform support for the Series S.
Not great to engineer streamlined system that you push to the max with first party titles to then instead get held back planning to support your competitor's worst product.
Honestly, the biggest thing holding back Sony ports to Xbox is probably Microsoft's insistence on platform support for the Series S.
I don’t agree with that assessment given Sony only published games on the Xbox One when forced to by the license holder. They also seem to do just fine porting their games to PC where there is a host of different hardware configurations. Go look at the minimum PC specs for Ratchet and Clank; that sure seems like it could run on a Series S to me.
load more comments
(5 replies)
As long as PS sells better than Xbox, they don't really need to acquire companies as it also makes economic sense for third party studios to simple agree on an exclusivity deal with the console leader.
We can already see how most multiplatform games actually perform better on PS5 despite Xbox Series X being a notch better. In fact, some games even lack features on Xbox (Callisto Protocol to date has shitty Ray Tracing on Xbox with poorer performance, Resident Evil 4 Remake having better controls on PS5 compared to Xbox) even without any deals that we know of, while games like Hogwarts Legacy have exclusive content just for PS5, and FF XVI outright being exclusive to PS5. Sony didn't have to acquire these devs to make that happen, the devs get to remain independent and sell their game exclusively on the largest current gen console.
And if and when Xbox sales actually start to match that of PS, they can still make PS+ a better service by having day one releases before going for acquisitions.
It doesn't feel like it, but with ABK, Microsoft finally has parity with Sony when it comes to number of IPs, with Sony still being the market leader with most reach and "true" exclusives that require you to buy the console.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the Zenimax titles end up as timed exclusives down the road rather than permanent exclusives as announced.
Yeah, I really hope this is how things play out with that acquisition. I'd really love to be able to play Elder Scrolls 6 (some day), but don't want to be forced into a separate ~$500 purchase in order to play it.
Similarly, Sony has set any of their own future acquisitions up for potential scrutiny if they continue down the path of total exclusively, and what’s likely going to end up happening is each side plays their bargaining chips to end up with mutual releases after timed windows.
Yeah, this is a concern I've had with Sony acquiring Bungie. Although, Bungie's new game, Marathon, is already slated to be cross platform, so the fact that they're not immediately going into exclusivity-mode is a good look, so far. Hopefully we see a similar pattern with their other new IP, Matter, whenever they share more about that.
If I was Sony I'd now immediately partner with Nvidia to offer their cloud gaming service on PS4 and PS5.
I know they are trying to roll their own but I think that's a mistake, and offering their users the ability to access Microsoft games on the equivalent of a 4080 for $19.99/mo for the duration of playing the one exclusive a year they'd actually care about would be the biggest F-U to Xbox.
Yes, in theory it could cannibalize software sales through channels they don't get a cut, but generally I'd prefer playing locally on a PS5 than dealing with compression artifacts on cloud offerings, even if the cloud offering is good enough to not buy a $500 separate box.
Why would Sony let Nvidia’s cloud service onto the PS storefront? If Sony wanted players to have access to an equivalent cloud model that Sony didn’t control, they’d just let Game Pass onto PlayStation.
let Game Pass onto PlayStation
Yeah, right.
Delivering a subpar workaround for your users is different from giving a subscription service that you don't get a cut of which is better than your current offerings.
Sony is exposed to far less risk to their revenue letting Nvidia in than Microsoft.
Nvidia would be max single digit cannibalized sales but would probably put a significant dent into the potential market of PS5 owners that might otherwise have bought Xbox hardware for exclusives.
Game Pass would likely be well into double digit cannibalized sales for both games and subscription services.
Yeah. When IBM started getting wary of antitrust in the 80s, that paved the way for Microsoft, and when Microsoft started getting wary of antitrust in the 90s, that paved the way for Google. The FTC may be toothless, but the more it sucks up a corporation's time and resources and just makes things difficult, the more it serves it's purpose regardless.
I don't know what to think about this acquisition. What I do know is that the FTC should pick their battles in a different way. There are at least a couple of other tech companies (Google, Amazon) that should be broken up because they're monopolies and I don't know why nobody at the FTC seems to be looking at them.
They have been picking their battles.
Breaking an existing company up into multiple smaller companies is an order of magnitude more difficult for a US regulator than stopping a company from buying another one. The FTC is running face first into a legal system that has methodically chipped away at anti trust law for generations. That's the obstacle here, not picking the wrong battles.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Big corporation gobbling up even more of the market is NEVER good for anyone but the corporation and it's shareholders.
Not for the consumers. Not for the gobbled. Just for the gobblee.
The Adobe purchase of Figma should never have been allowed.
What's Figma?
(Honestly I don't actually want to know what Figma is, I mostly just want to make someone giggle childishly)
It's used to design websites for the most part.
Like Photoshop but geared towards web pages.
The big thing was they did great co-authoring. Adobe tried and failed at it multiple times and started losing market share to Figma, so instead of competing they just bought it. Like they did with Macromedia.
The FTC is actually looking at Google
The Department of Justice (DOJ) also recently filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Google in particular.
The only people on the planet who give a shit about this within the provided context of gaming are Sony fanboys.
If people actually gave a shit about megacorporation problems and the FTC, they would be pissed the FTC took this bullshit case as an excuse to pretend to do things while Walmart and Amazon destroy every grocery chain and many other goods markets.
Within the context of gaming, Activision might be one of the 3 gaming companies worse than Microsoft. Microsoft owning them might actually improve their products and reduce their microtransactions.
I don't have a current PlayStation or Xbox. I give a shit about this. Because frankly you're just plain wrong. Two things can be wrong and deserve to be addressed. Just because people are upset about one doesn't mean they aren't upset about the other. The FTC should be tackling both. But they are purposefully hobbled by the opposition.
load more comments
(8 replies)
Press a massive X to doubt on reduction of micro transactions. See halo infinite on that front.
The reason I personally don’t want this as someone who does not own a PlayStation or a Nintendo console and likely never will is this leads to a future where Microsoft builds up enough IP where suddenly everything is locked into Microsoft game pass and their own store and windows that anyone wanting to use a different platform may as well just fuck off.
It’s the first step on the road to anti consumer practices that Microsoft has historically always done.
The only people on the planet who give a shit about this within the provided context of gaming are Sony fanboys.
I've owned every Xbox since the OG Xbox and my first thought about the deal was "that shouldn't be allowed".
It is inexcusable to let a trillion dollar profitable corporation purchase any other profitable corporation. If activision sucks the government should do it's job and investigate them and break them up, not give Microsoft more economic power and less incentive to compete. Good luck getting AB games on whoever tries to launch the next console, if they even bother trying knowing the current hegemony of the gaming landscape.
Microsoft isn't some magic unicorn unqiuely capable of running Activision not like a shit bag and no company should be as big as they already are. It's a hamfisted solution at best to give them control of AB, and one that doesn't actually address or dicentivize future shitty corporate behaviour.
There's one family taking over all the auto dealers in my area.I just started working for them and now if I decide to leave, I feel that I'm screwed if I have to find a job elsewhere in my area and my choices will be low. Microsoft taking over everything is not just bad for consumers, but it's bad for people that work in those industry.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I still have mixed feelings about this, but I never doubted it would go through.
Why do you have mixed feelings? Has massive industry consolidation ever benefitted the customers in the long run?
The US hasn't shown much interest in breaking up big companies in the past two decades. Once this is done, it practically can't be undone.
Microsoft is more powerful than most world governments. And it keeps expanding and growing.
Sony’s, not Microsoft’s, AAA dominance is bad for the video game industry. Video games are a somewhat unique medium in that smaller development houses can and do compete with the megacorps. I’d rather Sony have healthy direct competition over them eating up even more market share.
Competition between Sony and Microsoft with Nintendo also having their own parallel strategy is good and better than the alternative, imo.
How is Microsoft buying out large publisher good competition?
Because Sony is so far ahead in the console battle that it’s important they have competition (Nintendo is not competition).
There’s a push and pull here in terms of exclusives being bad but also having Sony becoming a monopoly / having no completion would also be bad.
And Microsoft becoming a monopoly/ having no competition is good? How is anyone supposed to complete with a billion dollar company who can just out buy the competition?
I take it that if Sony responded with buying out 2K and making all those games exclusive you'd be fine with it because that's healthy competition for Microsoft?
Just waiting for Amazon to buy EA or Ubisoft and have them say its exclusice for Amazon Luna subscribers and gamers to go "wow, this is great I can finally play Assassins Creed on my phone and it increases competition!"
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›