• lustyargonian@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Just curious, could you list tangile points which would lead to a loss for consumers?

    The only thing I can think of is MSFT becoming evil and making everything shit and super expensive, in which case talent would leave to create new studios and customers would move to competitors where they would get a better deal. This is possible because in this industry any game can become a top seller (Vampire Survivors, Stardew Valley, BattleBit for e.g.) and there are competitors like Tencent, Sony, Nintendo, Rockstar, all succeeding without ABK games.

    Here are some of the pros I can think of:

    Getting access to ABK games under a subscription services gives cheaper access to games as long as the subscription fee is less than $70/quarter, assuming avg gamer buys CoD every year to play for 3 months. And when it becomes more expensive than that, avg gamer would simply buy the games like they currently do.

    CoD on GeForce now for next 10 years makes cloud gaming more lucrative, and competitive given how poor xCloud is compared to GeForce Now.

    Having CoD on Sony platforms for at least next 10 years leaves enough time for Sony to invest in first party shooters, something they had ignored for so long.

    Xbox getting content and quality parity for CoD acts as a equilizer for all gamers, something which Sony was blocking so far with exclusivity contracts.

    Microsoft getting some leverage over monopoly of App Store and Play Store to push for lower commisions or alternate stores on respective mobile OSes makes it better for all mobile devs by bringing competition.

    AB games coming to steam also sounds like something PC gamers would like.

    Microsoft potentially clearing the toxic culture at ABK and allowing unionisation only makes it a much safer and equal working place. It may not lead to high quality best seller games, but I guess ABK can benefit from lack of toxicity at cost of lack of profits.

    Update: those who are downvoting, please do share your thoughts. I’m happy to learn more and update my perspective on this.

    • Frog@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey Mister! Guess what?! You aren’t wrong. And I agree. Carry on.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      MSFT becoming evil

      You are nearly 40 years late.

      As someone who’s been a Blizzard customer for 30 years roughly. Selling to Activision was a bad move from a customer perspective. Selling all that to Microsoft is utter bobbins. I 100% think Microsoft games division is currently less horrible than Bobby Kotik. It’s a real; real low bar. But I know for a fact that as a customer I’d be much more satisfied if Blizzard was independent again and able to develop at their own pace and schedule. And not that of some distant detached greedy CEO focused on quarterly profits, and what they can cancel in the short term to boost them.

      Also I have this controversial statement. There should be no locked down consoles or console exclusives for the last 20 years or so. They’ve all been one of 3 more or less common PC microarchitectures. Intel, PPC, and ARM. Hell before that they were largely Z80 or 6502 based. Those at least ran bare metal with fairly specialized configurations and timings. All the modern stuff largely runs on otherwise largely common commodity hardware with well-known APIs and back ends. Just artificially locked down.