Microsoft’s purchase of Activision Blizzard may go ahead in the United States, as Judge Corley sees no danger of harming competition.

  • charlybones@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    While I agree that in the end this is probably not good in the long run, I do hope they do something with the state of Call of Duty, activision has killed the franchise. Just look at the latest warzone / MW player count.

    I used to enjoy playing with my friends. But the game is so broken.

    I do think Phil Schiller is a good guy, let’s hope this doesn’t go sideways.

    Maybe I’m being naive… only time will tell.

  • rhokwar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    the judge ensures that it is clear that Microsoft’s intention is to bring the Call of Duty saga, and the rest of Activision’s content, to a greater number of consumers.

    How can a judge be so naive?

    • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not naive, it’s the truth. They’re going to bring their games, including COD, to the switch, to steam, to mobile, and will keep releasing COD and other GaaS games on PS.

    • eric5949@lemmy.cloudaf.site
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Imagine cheering for monopolistic practices. Gross. In 20 years when everything is owned by Microsoft and Sony and games are $200 a piece or gamepass $40 a month don’t complain.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s monopolistic about the last placed competitor buying a company to try and better compete?

        • eric5949@lemmy.cloudaf.site
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          what’s not monopolistic about the second largest company in the world buying two out of like 10 major AAA publishers within 3 years, leveraging their massive market cap and other businesses to muscle their way to the top of an industry they’re currently losing in? The point isn’t that they’re in last place, the point is if they go buy out half the industry they will win by default. I mean fuck dude they literally talked about using microsoft’s money to run sony out of the business, you can go read it.

          You don’t need to simp for the a two and a half trillion dollar company, they’ll be fine.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            what’s not monopolistic about

            Literally the fact that they don’t have a monopoly, and are still nowhere near being a monopoly. Do you even know what a monopoly is?

            I mean fuck dude they literally talked about using microsoft’s money to run sony out of the business, you can go read it.

            They said that they could, which is true. They haven’t though. Even then - not monopolistic.

            The company in 3rd place out of 3 cannot be a monopoly lol.

    • oscarlavi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The major information that you can take away from this whole case, is just how much Call of Duty means to Sony, and gaming in general. Some stats came out that there were a good number of people who only play Call of Duty. I mean they own a PS5 and the only game they own and play is Call of Duty. For Sony, it’s a potential loss of a significant portion of their customer base.

  • Gt5@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can someone help me to understand why this is a bad (or good) thing. In my mind, Activision is huge - I’m having a hard time understanding what the difference will be here?

  • uglytruck@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I personally see this as bad. Look at all the local television stations getting bought up and have become “message deliverers”. There are only few companies that own the majority and have decided that delivering local news is secondary to deploying a message. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_fHfgU8oMSo]