From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

So, what am I to think of Microsoft's attempt to buy Activision? On
the one hand, Activision desperately needs a shake-up. Their
leadership is a mess, and the company has become complacently reliant
on a tiny number of IPs (and the associated MTX, especially in the
mobile space) rather than on innovation and quality.

On the other hand, it's obvious Microsoft is mostly interested in
Activision for their powerful position in the mobile domain, and the
company is big enough already. And while it's currently quite
supportive of PC gaming, that support has been very uncertain in the
past, and it's push towards subscription/software-as-a-service gaming
isn't something I can get behind.

Still, it might not matter in the end, with European regulators likely
to put the kibosh on the whole deal; they're no happier about
Microsoft getting any bigger either. The fact that it will control one
of the big-three triple-A publishers and is also a console manufacture
is a major concern, not only to regulators but also its competitors.
Having been so hands-off with other mergers between big-tech companies
(and seen the harm that caused), governments are now becoming more
proactive, and Microsoft hasn't offered any convincing arguments that
it won't be a dangerous monopolist. So while the acquisition isn't
off, it certainly is going to be delayed for a while.

Which is a shame, because I'd really like to see Kotick and his
cronies get the boot. It's also a problem because - until the
acquistion is complete - it's unlikely that we'll see anything even
marginally risky from the Activision; maintaining the status-quo and
making short-term-focused moves that bolster the company's value (even
if long-term those actions might sink the company) is the usual
strategy until the contract is signed and the money changes hands.

Well, maybe some other company will swoop in and offer Activision a
better deal without the monopolistic entanglements that come with
being associated with Microsoft. Say, CD Project RED, I don't suppose
you have $75 billion lying around?



--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

Can't even remember the last Activision game I bought, or even if I ever have.
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:53:43 -0700 (PDT), T987654321
<qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:

Can't even remember the last Activision game I bought, or even if I ever have.

Oh, so THAT'S what happened to this post. I wondered why it didn't get
any responses. Turns out I dropped it in the wrong newsgroup.

But, yeah, Activision is mostly dead to me too, mostly because I don't
like the company, but it doesn't hurt that none of their games are
particularly interesting to me. The company has been sticking to its
'safe' IPs for years - not surprising if they were expecting a merger;
you don't rock the boat until the deal is complete - but their lack of innovation hasn't made me look any more fondly on them.

Of course, Nadella, Microsoft's CEO, is making noises about how he is
"very confident" that the deal will go through*... but then that's
exactly the sort of thing you'd expect him to say. I'm not sure he's
wrong either but there is a lot more wariness about allowing such
large tech mergers these days than there was even two years ago. It's
not just the regular scrutiny these sorts of mergers usually have to
endure.

In the meantime, we can rest assured that Call of Duty XXVIII pt 2 The
Rebooted Edition (or whatever the franchise is up to) is available for
us to play, and this time I'm sure it will be as revolutionary as
Activision is promising, right? ;-) ;-)




============================
* https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-22/microsoft-ceo-is-confident-about-activision-deal-approval-handling-of-economy
--- Synchronet 3.19c-Linux NewsLink 1.113