Submitted by Brook030 t3_zu1aju in technology
KiwiBigBoss t1_j1h6ka0 wrote
Reply to comment by Victor346 in Microsoft will fight U.S. over $68.7-billion Activision Blizzard deal by Brook030
And I just want to see more competition in the industry.
janoDX t1_j1iw9fz wrote
And I just want to see COD on Switch.
hawkma999 t1_j1jxztw wrote
Lucky for you, this acquisition would finally help bring competition to the industry after a decade of Sony having an easy time.
KiwiBigBoss t1_j1k0wzd wrote
Consolidation does not lead to competition, if anything it reduces competition.
hawkma999 t1_j1k4vcr wrote
You can't blanketly treat all consolidation the same. This is something that will help bring the industry back to the days of aggresive competition of the 360 vs PS3 era.
acprocode t1_j1kcrtw wrote
We've already seen what happens to studios that are bought out by microsoft though, so what point exactly are you trying to make here? In the era of 360 vs Ps3 most of these studios were not bought out by a larger entity, infact once they were getting bought out during the ps4 vs xbone era, this is when we saw a massive dip in game quality.
hawkma999 t1_j1kemwm wrote
It's the people in charge and their strategies that matter, not a company name.
Phil inherited few first party gaming studios with poor leadership in them. And he's had a "hands off" approach with managing these devs, allowing them to do as they will.
Normally that would be seen as a good thing. But when the studios already have poor leadership in them, it doesn't really mean much.
Microsoft acquiring new first party studios is the only way to bolster their first party offering without compromising on their hands off approach.
Your point on the 360 vs PS3 bit is actually inaccurate. The 360 vs PS3 era was competive precisely because Microsoft and Sony had bought a lot of studios during the previous generation and both worked exclusivity deals with third party ones.
And again, you can't blanketly treat all larger entities the same. Unlike Activision, Microsoft must put out games people want to buy to bolster both the Xbox console and their subscription service. As the console makes a loss for the company and subscription services take a long time to make a meaningful profit. If it can even consistently sustain one as MS is pretty open about the fact that gamepass deals are all over the place.
Activision alone has no such dynamic and financial preassure.
acprocode t1_j1kftzh wrote
>Your point on the 360 vs PS3 bit is actually inaccurate. The 360 vs PS3 era was competive precisely because Microsoft and Sony had bought a lot of studios during the previous generation and both worked exclusivity deals with third party ones.
Its actually not, weve seen with consolidation over the last 5-6 years now innovation has largely been stifled and there is signficantly less risk taking in the gaming industry due to the cost of making a gaming in 2020+ . This is why you see from acti-blizz that the most effective approach is just to make sequels, dlc's, expansions etc... on top of existing ip's. Back during the 360 vs Ps3 era's, companies were drastically more inclined to attempt to create new IP's because they weren't housed under a single entity. After blizzard merged with activision one could definitely argue that innovation went out the window in place of repeatable design patterns that had guaranteed profitability.
​
>Unlike Activition, Microsoft must put out games people want to buy to bolster both the Xbox console and their subscription service. As the console makes a loss for the company and subscription services take a long time to make a meaningful profit.
Theyve had more than half a decade to put out games that people want to buy and they couldnt do it even with all the studio's they have purchased. You can't blame the leadership when microsoft had more than half a decade to change it.
hawkma999 t1_j1kgjpl wrote
Again, you're comparing consolidation of gaming companies under publishers to console manufacturer. MS actually has strong financial interests in getting out more variety of games that people want to buy. And gamepass makes this reason doubly so.
And if on thay half a decade comment you are referring only to the new studios they have acquired (Obsidian and Bethesda) then they have put out games that people want to buy, just not exclusive to Xbox. So I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
acprocode t1_j1kcn4k wrote
I am not sure how microsoft buying out a bunch of AAA devs and then making them produce jack shit for 5 years now is somehow sony's fault. Infact I would argue its a valid point of why microsoft really shouldnt be buying acti-blizz to begin with.
hawkma999 t1_j1kdli1 wrote
Can you point to me which AAA devs did Microsoft make to "produce jack shit for 5 years now".
I'm guessing you're referring to the triple A devs Microsoft already had 5 years ago (343, Rare, The Coalition, etc.) not any they acquired recently.
The issue is that Phil Spencer inherited few first party studios with those studios having poor leadership in them. Phil has had a "hands off" approach since he became the head of Xbox. Now, normally that would be seen as a good thing, but with poor leadership already plauging the companies they already had, having a hands off approach does not really do much.
Microsoft acquiring more studios is the only way to bolster their first party games without compromising on their hands off strategy. Something that I am sure you are aware the current head of Activition does not do with their gaming studios.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments