Where do you stand on Microsoft buying Activision/Blizzard?

[LurkerJ]

EpicRandy said: "Why doesn't MS invest in their own studios?" Nadella has answered this question before, here is a direct quote:  “You can’t wake up one day and say, ‘Let me build a game studio,'” Nadella told Cnet, later advising that the company will consider buying more studios beyond those within Bethesda. He's not wrong though, while you can build a new studio from the ground up and MS have done so many times in the past, the investment MS is now willing to make, makes it impossible to grow only organically or else it would be decades before they can profits from their efforts. Acquisitions are the only way for such investment. Also MS is growing internally, it's not like The initiative, for instance, was all done the moment they announced it's creation, they are still growing as are all Xbox studios whether build or acquired.

But don't you think it's hypocritical to say that SONY can make their Bethesda-like evergreen IPs from scratch to counter act the acquisition, yet in the same breath, say that MS will have to wait decades to make it happen?

The "you can't wake up one day and say, let me build a game studio" mentality has always been my biggest pet peeve with MS, they just don't innovate and don't add nearly as much as they should to the tech industry despite their endless pockets and dominance. It's almost always "wait and copy or buy what works" approach. Microsoft didn't retreat from being a consumer company, consumers have rejected them as one due to lack of innovation and investments in original ideas and content. Reactionary products is all we get from MS. You like your iPod? here is your Zune, you like your iPad? here is Windows 8. You like your arm-based Mac mini? we have one too. Not enough? Surface EarPods are here for you too. 

Even when they succeed, like they have with Teams, it's because they copied Slack and Zoom and used Office dominance to make it the default standard, the fact that they had Skype sitting in a corner after buying it for billions of dollars didn't matter. It's not just they lack innovation on the hardware front, but also on the software front. Even when it comes to the latest consoles, you have SONY trying new things with the Dual sense, with the SSD, and with VR. When SONY looks an innovative consumer company against you, you clearly have a problem. Just to put out there, I don't view SONY as an innovative company either. 

LurkerJ said: "With how much scrutiny MS is getting from this acquisition, so who knows who else MS is referring to." Ubisoft? EA? any studio that gives them a stronger hold over Europe? we've seen countless statements from Microsoft about their intents to buy more studios, literally the next day Bethesda was bought, Nadella said he'd do it again. Similarly after the Acti/Blizzard announced, we heard similar statements from Microsoft. I can see why we may not witness that vulgar display of power these days, but I think it's dangerous to assume that "once Acti/Blizzard is approved, MS won't do it again" because, A, MS said otherwise, B, approving the biggest tech merger in history will embolden MS even more. Yes and no logics tell me they won't try a deal on that scale anymore unless this one does not pass. The thing is Microsoft's renewed faith in the Xbox division is caused by it's strong beliefs that GamePass could be humongous and that it needs more content to provide enough growth to reach it's potential. But there's a limit to this. There's a point where pumping new content faster won't do anything anymore as you'll be far in the diminishing return territory (the point were user don't need any more reason to subscribe). 1 AAA release/quarter, like MS previously mentioned as their goal, fine, 1 AAA/2 month yeah maybe I'll be missing on many of those, 1 AAA / month clearly Gamepass does not need this. Of course, some lesser acquisition might still occur but if MS wants to stay efficient uncontrolled growth is not the way to go. But if I'm wrong, well Microsoft may try I guess, but this deal cannot be blocked because MS may do another in the future, that's not a valid argument. As bad as the FTC arguments are, even them ain't arguing as such.

I mean, you're going against what MS has repeatedly said in the past about future acquisitions just to prove you're right. You start by saying "LOGIC TELLS ME". But non of this is logical at all. I never said this deal should be blocked because MS may do another one in the future,  they've already done that and said they would do it again, your opinion on why it's not going to happen flies in the face of MS publicly stated intents, and flies in the face of how positive reinforcement works. It's not a logical opinion, not at all, it's an opinion you use to dismiss valid concerns about where this is heading towards. 

EpicRandy said:

LurkerJ said:

As for me being aggressive for suggesting you're relying on MS's good will, I don't know why that reads aggressively to you. I genuinely don't get people, Apologies either way and merry Christmas. 

• Really appreciated merry Christmas to you to 🎅
• Just for precision though passive-agressive is a form of aggression but it's not the same as being aggressive. As you opened up on your condition I'll do so a little myself, my family and I had to deal with a relative with borderline personality that is always being passive-agressive and that recently wanted to do us harm cause we tried to put an end to our acceptance of the behaviour and this is still ongoing so I'm rally sensitive on this. to better identity lines that are as such, just ask yourself if what your typing are really targeted toward the argument being made rather than the one who made it or others that think the same. Normally I let go but this time there were a bunch group together and really felt attacked. ex: all those are exemple on there own and they were one after the other:
  • Sorry, I don't think you're actually convinced with your own statements,
  • they're just... too naive and I don't believe you are naive.
  • Honestly, I can't believe some are making these arguments.

I hope you have had a good holiday. 

In my defence, you also have said things like "as bad as the FTC arguments are, yours are even worse" when my argument is completely derived from MS publicly stated intent to consolidate more of the gaming business, in return, you are asking me to take what you think is going to happen more seriously that MS is saying and accept it as logic, which is... odd, ain't it?

I come across these examples all the time, especially in the politics threads. No, I am not going to explain to anyone why letting China be the manufacturer of the world can be considered a security and an economical threat, that's like asking me to spoon-feed the basics, which I refuse to do, and once it comes down to that, I tend to retreat from the discussion because it's not genuine anymore and it's about proving myself "right". I don't know how else to perceive this. 

I will take your feedback to heart and avoid this sort of language in threads like this one. I'll stick to labelling arguments that I don't understand as "odd" from now on. 

Last edited by LurkerJ - on 16 January 2023