Just the UK CMA standing in the way then, with its flimsy decision resting almost entirely on speculation about the "cloud gaming" market.

Microsoft should be offering to to swear off cloud gaming entirely, they should be delighted. Game streaming is a lousy solution that requires enormous investment in specific infrastructure, it would be smart to ignore it and focus on their great subscription service that only requires a $500 Xbox.

Oh man, I hope they don't get rid of cloud gaming. It's been amazing, especially with their new partnership with GeForce Now (which IMO is the smarter move... rather than sunsetting xCloud entirely, just partner with Nvidia to make GFN the default since most cross platform Xbox/Windows games support controllers anyway).

Streaming games is an amazing convenience (and value) for those of us who don't want to be limited to an Xbox (poor graphics, limited mouse/keyboard support) but also don't want to shell out $3k for a RTX 4080 rig and all its associated noise and heat.

Where Stadia failed, GeForce Now, Luna, Shadow, and Xbox and PS streaming are still alive and well. And very useful!

> Game streaming is a lousy solution

I feel like it's only bad because it's still mostly a half-way house. Slapping existing AAA titles onto networked GPUs and calling it a day <> streaming gaming in my view.

Streaming gaming is actually a thing for me when someone builds a game using it that would absolutely not be possible using traditional technology. For example, an MMO so massive that the average player's network stack couldn't handle all of the events, so the only rational option is to render everything on some supercomputer and ship the final frames.

Consider also that you can get a lot of reuse out of a particular scene graph if multiple players are in the same one. Many such cases in streaming gaming. There are new, multi-server engine architectures that will not be possible until we start saying things like "this will be a streaming-only exclusive". That is probably the scariest proposal an MBA in any AAA studio could hear in 2023, so I don't expect you will see Blizzard or Sony playing in this flavor of traffic any time soon.

You can fit a ton of data down a consumer's pipe. Can you actually design a game that would have those network requirements? A single frame of video is a ton of data compared to traditional game state constructs.

What's more exciting to me the client doesn't need that data or assets you can actually make games thatb need to be discovered though the game. No peeking local files or state for what's possible in the game.

Along similar lines, this also solves a massive class of cheating for competitive/multiplayer gaming.

You can still do the AI screenscrape mouse bots, but there are clever statistical+active hybrid approaches that can catch those assholes too.

Pure data rate is not a fantastic example. I'd also offer up something like large or dynamic assets (I think flight simulator is a good current example of that) or a game that is simply extremely big and needs a shitload of dram or GPU memory to keep around effectively.

And the thing is, latency can be "good enough" for some games. I tried out the top end tier of GeForce NOW for a month just to see what it was like since I've always been skeptical of game streaming. I picked Last Epoch as a game since it has (had?) a reputation for being hard to run at 4k.

Even at 4k, I could play it and my views on game streaming have changed a bit. This was last year and I was using an i7 4770k based system. I can say pretty confidently that I found the local lag spikes from not having a high end gaming PC to be far more frustrating than the consistent 40ms of latency via streaming. Maybe it's because I'm getting older and don't have the same reflexes anymore, but I couldn't even really notice the latency via streaming.

I also think people are seriously overlooking the trend towards secure computing. What if you put a TPM in a video card? Then your video for the game stream can be encrypted and only gets decoded just before being sent to your HDCP compliant monitor. I think it's much harder to build cheats if the client side doesn't have any data to work with beyond video that gets decrypted as it's sent to your monitor.

Heck, even just a lack of local game data gets rid of most cheating, right?

> What if you put a TPM in a video card? Then your video for the game stream can be encrypted and only gets decoded just before being sent to your HDCP compliant monitor.

This is a fantastic idea. If you can get the GPU swap chain secured all the way from the datacenter's GPU, even the laziest cheaters would be forced to go buy specialized hardware to strip HDCP, and then find a way to get it back into the damn computer. What a fuckin nightmare, eh? It's almost like a job at that point. This is a massive barrier to entry and would likely eliminate 99%+ of "insecure" gaming experiences.

Could you do something even crazier like an HDMI pass thru terminal that detects the "secure gaming frame" via some signature and is able to decode it on the output? Sell em to gamers for $49.99 like it's a new kind of premium TV box? Doesn't change the security angle (can still break HDCP on the other side), and makes it so the gamer doesn't have to replace any PC hardware or software. Plug the box, load the streaming game website, enter your serial # to bind to your account, and off you go. You'd probably incur some extra latency using the external hardware, but with ASIC/FPGAs you could keep it right at 1-2 frames.

Total War, but every soldier is an actual player.

If I remember right this approach was a key pillar to the Xbox One at launch, with for example the Crackdown demo[1] using cloud for much more advanced physics/building destruction than the release game, with statements to effect of 3x the power of the console being available in the cloud.[2] With online only being a requirement when the One launched I think Microsoft tried something close to a streaming only exclusives, but at least at that point wasn't able to make it work.

[1]https://youtu.be/EWANLy9TjRc?t=594

[2]https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/05/how-the-xbox-one-draw...

Game streaming is a death sentence for game preservation. It will also be pretty bad for quality. Are your users playing a better older game? Kill it and replace with a worse more predatory one. And no one ever will be able to play the older game again.

>it would be smart to ignore it and focus on their great subscription service that only requires a $500 Xbox.

in the same way that nintendo thought it was smart to ignore online gaming for some 15 years, sure. It was true for a while. Until it wasnt

MS isn't doing this because it's immediately profitable. They feel it's the future, and they can iron out the technical issues. They want to be in the forefront when that arrives instead of playing catchup.

Also, more obviously: Gamepass is on Android and Android isn't playing those games natively. It's another way to target the mobile market.

Great let’s add another merger on top of a merger that was already horrible for consumers and creates even less competition.

What? How does this lessen competition?

The PC gaming market is thriving thanks to Steam and indies.

Playstation is doing well. Switch is doing great.

Microsoft? Aside from providing Windows and DirectX, they're basically invisible. Xbox is just a cheap wannabe PC with no great games. It's a wonder they've supported it for this long. Maybe this acquisition gives them a fighting chance against Sony and Nintendo.

It's not like Activision and Blizzard are even particularly beloved, just pumping out endless sequels. They're steady but relatively soulless cash machines that don't really innovate anymore anyway.

Having Microsoft in control might improve their internal cultures, maybe make Blizzard games finally available on Steam, get more and Bethesda Xbox games on GeForce Now, etc. Maybe even make more games cross platform and with good controller support. Those all seem great. Meanwhile the real innovation will continue to come from indies while the behemoths just keep pumping out new graphics (which are often just Unreal anyway, which is again not Microsoft).

Microsoft is just too minor to be dominant in modern gaming, and Activision is a has-been that just keeps making filler titles. It's not some great loss to the industry. Now if someone acquired Valve, that would be a tragedy...

> Playstation is doing well. Switch is doing great.

For now. Fortunes change pretty quick in the console world. One generation you are on top, the next you are struggling for second place.

MS buying Activision is bad. This gives MS a long term advantage. It signals to companies like Sony and Nintendo that they shouldn’t bother competing since they can never counter the buying out of huge publishers as they aren’t worth 2.47 trillion USD like Microsoft.

That just isn't true though. Sony and Nintendo have no problem competing at all by the quality of their first-party and exclusive games. For every Call of Duty there is a Horizons or a God of War or Zelda or whatever. Xbox is the worst of all the platforms in terms of that. Even PC and mobile have more (good) games that aren't available on Xbox.

Has Microsoft has any major successes since Halo and Fable, years and years ago? They're desperate for games. Activision isn't going to suddenly make the dominant overnight. If anything, it would barely help stop the bleeding. Microsoft is so far behind right now it's not funny. I'd be way more afraid of competition dying because Microsoft gave up on it rather than buying Activision.

The huge concern here is not that Microsoft can’t compete, because they can as they have far more studios than Sony does. The issue is their strategy overall which is top earning multi-platform companies, like Bethesda and ActiBlizz, to cut off revenue from competitors. Meanwhile Sony’s biggest acquisitions were studios that mainly focused on their platform to begin with.

I see. That's fair. They offered a 10-year license for Call of Duty, at least, not sure about the other franchises.

The 10 year guarantee means nothing as I can see Microsoft crippling non-Xbox versions of CoD - e.g. it has poorer performance on PS5.

The 10 year guarantee includes similar performance promises. I don't know how enforceable they are.

I would say it’s unenforceable hence the guarantee is worthless.

MS is playing the long game. They don’t care about this generation. They want to win all future generations.

3rd party support plays a big part in a console’s success. MS is effectively buying out one of the largest 3rd party studios denying its competitors their support.

Does Activision have any major titles on the Switch right now? Nintendo seems happy to be doing their own thing. It's not like they need to buy huge publishers, since they own all the important IP (Mario, Zelda, 1/3 or 1/2 of Pokemon, etc)

Ehh I think this allows microsoft to catch up. I think they were the laggards in the console war.

If Microsoft caught up by building up 1st party studios nigh from scratch - which is what Sony did - I would have no complaints because anyone could do that. May the best company win.

Buying up one of the biggest publishers though. What’s Sony and Nintendo, whose combined market cap is less than 7% of MS’s, suppose to do? I don’t see how allowing “big money Pay 2 Win without a fight” in anyway benefits the consumer.

I don't think Market Cap is an honest metric to use here. Microsoft's Market Cap is that high comparatively because theyre diverse products in computer, cloud, and tech.

How much of that MC is solely X-box and how much do MS , Sony, and Nintendo own of that respectively? MS studios has been struggling. Activision also has been struggling to land some hits and only recently with Diablo 4 they have got some relief. So buying Activision is not a golden ticket.

Do you think Sony or Nintendo can spit out 70 billion to buy a publisher without breaking a sweat like Microsoft?

> Now if someone acquired Valve, that would be a tragedy...

Honestly I would cherish the moment. It would be the most likely path to actually seeing HL3 released. The one time the filthy capitalists manage to do a good thing...

Valve to me has become a pathetic, rent-seeking platform owner. No clue why the gaming community still holds them in such regard. Linux support and not being publicly traded must be a massive deal for some gamers I suppose. The indie developers who launch on their platform are much more deserving of your attention & praise. The guys who developed battle bit have done more to improve my gaming experience than anything all of Valve has done since Portal 2 was released over a decade ago.

> It would be the most likely path to actually seeing HL3 released.

The thought of seeing HL3 actually released makes me a little nervous. When I look at great game franchises that had a large time gap before another sequel is released, it seems pretty rare for that sequel not to be terrible.

I don't think it's fair to understate the impact Steam has had on indie game dev. We went from "maybe hearing about this shareware on the PC Gamer floppy if you're lucky" to spamware sites like Tucows to a huge centralized marketplace of phenomenal games because the devs had a way to let people discover their one-hit wonder, get great reviews, etc.

Yes, I want HL3 as much as anyone, but Alyx was pretty cool (still one of the better VR demos), the Steam Deck is innovative in its own way (and Aperture Desk Job is a fun HL universe spinoff), GeForce Now integration is really useful for some of us, Cloud Save is awesome, etc. Not to mention the sales... because of Steam sales and resellers (isthereanydeal.com) games are far more affordable than they ever were before, especially compared to the consoles.

The platform is WORTH paying rent for. If you want to see how bad it could be otherwise, it's not a hypothetical... Epic, Windows Games Marketplace (or whatever it's called these days), GOG, etc. are all far inferior in terms of ease of use, features, selection, pricing, etc. As someone who's been PC gaming since Lode Runner and Commander Keen, Steam is by far the best thing that's happened to it in three decades. It was even more transformative than 3DFX or DirectX in terms of the quality and quantity of games made available to gamers.

I hear what you're saying, and don't disagree. But Steam has become something I dislike enough that I stopped using it years ago. For me, it's GOG, unless I can get the game directly from the publisher.

The Steam Deck is pretty great. Probably the biggest leap in PC gaming for me in the past 15 years.

If Valve is bought by the likes of Microsoft and HL3 is released I’m pretty sure it will be utter garbage. Hunt Down the Freeman is the HL3 we deserve.

Heck, I’m still mad that Microsoft caused DeusEx 2 to be downscaled and dumbed down for the XBox.

Are you talking about the Vivendi and Activision merger?

I don't think this is a very good take. People tend to see one big company buy another and instantly think it's harmful for the consumer. I think that this is beneficial. Activision feels like a stagnant company that just rehashes old titles and squeezes as much cash out of them as they can. Microsoft buying them provides an opportunity for better management and Microsoft can add their IP to gamepass, which I think could end up a very good product that allows consumers to play a wide selection of games without having to purchase each. This business model is needed in the gaming industry.

They better not FU COD!!

Any worse than the 15 years of annual releases already have?

The FTC's incredibly low win rate in federal court should be a source of agency-wide embarrassment. The only place they reliably win is their kangaroo "administrative courts" in which they act as the judge, jury and executioner but those are probably on their way out. But it doesn't even matter anyways because the new strategy is going to be outsourcing enforcement to Europe.

Can you share a link to that strategy memo?

Is the low win rate a surprise though? As a foreign observer, the US justice system seems to largely be based on who can spend the most - so large company > government > small company > citizen is pretty much the assumed outcome. I have a vague sense the order also wraps around (individual > large company) because of cases like the McDonald's boiling coffee, but in those cases headlines and bad PR are just acting as a proxy for money.

The FTC is still spooling anti trust enforcement back up from a nonexistent state. A lot of the rules governing mergers and acquisitions haven't been enforced since the 1980s due to regulatory capture.

Read up on developments in anti-trust in the last couple of years here:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/

I would expect the FTC to have a low win rate. Let's leave aside how atrophied enforcement of antitrust has been over the last 40 years, and the subsequent implications for case law, regulations and human skill of litigators.

This is a 75 billion dollar event between two giant companies. They can pay for legal advice. That legal advice is well incentivized to predict how the case will go, and signed off on it. I assume MS has to pay a hefty fee if the acquisition is blocked for antitrust reasons, in addition to the time and embarrassment for all involved.

Therefore, the only cases the FTC should expect to see are ones where highly paid lawyers said "we will probably win this case". They might be wrong (and the FTC does seem unable to stop too many cases), but no matter how tough the enforcement gets, I would expect the FTC to usually lose at trial. The standards will just be applied pre-merger announcement (or probably pre-offer).

It might be an exciting couple of years when the FTC regrows its backbone and the lawyers assessing mergers have not caught up yet.

Microsoft still needs more studios to make Game Pass a “Netflix for Gaming” service. WoW and CoD and the rest of the ActiBlizz back catalogue help but Microsoft still doesn’t have enough studios to be pumping out a new major release every month.

Even Netflix itself is no longer “Netflix for video”

The idea of subscribing to get games (movies and TV shows) instead of buying to own them Netflix is certainly still doing. Constant, consistent revenue by having people subscribe instead of paying a bunch to market to them and hope it is a blockbuster, to me at least, seems far more sustainable for publishers and developers.

We know from history that exclusives are incredibly important in the console industry.

Microsoft buying ATVI will net them ownership over one of the most important game IPs of the last three console generations.

The only way this decision makes any sense is that the courts are somehow thinking that 10 years is long enough and things will be different by the time MS is in the position to tilt the deck to their favour by making parts of or the entirety of this franchise a platform exclusive.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is already 16 years old, so the courts are likely wrong as this franchise clearly has remarkable staying power to still be this relevant.

Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36682139.