EPTguess that doesn't matter too much when you're shitting money, let's see if this gets past the regulators tho.. i'm anxiously awaiting to wide walk as a zealot in VR world!!
Microsoft buys Activision/Blizzard for $70B - Page 3
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
TT1
Canada10035 Posts
guess that doesn't matter too much when you're shitting money, let's see if this gets past the regulators tho.. i'm anxiously awaiting to wide walk as a zealot in VR world!! | ||
|
Just_a_Moth
Canada1966 Posts
On January 19 2022 09:50 Essbee wrote: I think they can finally solve BW's balance by only allowing you to pick protoss i̶f̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶'̶r̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶x̶b̶o̶x̶.̶ + Show Spoiler + I'm joking, in case that wasn't obvious | ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1699 Posts
 | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4141 Posts
| ||
|
QuadroX
386 Posts
| ||
|
LUCKY_NOOB
Bulgaria1537 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8846 Posts
| ||
|
oxKnu
1256 Posts
On January 19 2022 17:42 evilfatsh1t wrote: 3 threads discussing the acquisition and im still struggling to see how the fuck they came up with a $70b valuation for this dogshit company. like seriously...what the fuck happened there? They have well paid people figuring that one out, don't worry about it. | ||
|
Timebon3s
Norway764 Posts
| ||
|
Cheesefome
314 Posts
On January 18 2022 23:49 Ikirouta wrote: They can close the servers. Also afaik only the SC:R team got shut down, not the entire Classic games division? Or am I wrong about this? They wont close the severs lol. Game is still pretty damn active more active than most games. | ||
|
razorsuKe
Canada2001 Posts
On January 19 2022 17:37 LUCKY_NOOB wrote: $68.7 billion is $69 billion rounded up... NOT 70 like the title says... I love razersuke but u fucked that one up BIG TIME! The first headline I read quoted 70B, something like this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/01/18/microsoft-is-buying-activision-blizzard-for-70-billion-a-colossal-purchase-for-xbox/ | ||
|
ox.tQ
797 Posts
I am quite ignorant about this topic myself. But using my own common sense, I'd say all signs point to little or no change in terms of future investments by MS into SC (e.g., providing prize pools for old or new events, preventing or fixing bugs/glitches, updating ladder map pool in time, advertising SC to increase player base, implementing new balancing patches, developing SC3 or another SC1 expansion, etc.). This game simply does not offer much return on investments from a corporate point of view. There are business and competitive pressures, which have dramatically increased during the pandemic period, guiding the decisions of corporations such as MS. The needs, expectations and demands of a small consumer base such as ours are in many ways irrelevant, unimportant and unprofitable from a corporate point of view. Microsoft is no different in my opinion. Add to that the fact that the small player base of SC has continued to play the game for many years now with little or no expectations from Blizzard/Activision. The game has been, is and will continue to be "good enough" from the perspective of past and current owners of SC. Investing more corporate resources and time into enhancing the experience of the game constitutes diminishing returns and I dare say it would do nothing to increase the player base and company revenues in any significant way. This is precisely why it has not been done before. This is partly because even if SC had all the fancy updates/changes that the current small player base demands or desires, the game as a whole would still not have much mass appeal to attract more players and generate more revenue. It is a very old game. It is a very difficult and frustrating game to play, especially compared to the playability and short learning curve of popular games today. It has problems at the software level, both for playing and making maps. And the list goes on. I don't know. It seems to me that a very strong current of impractical, idealistic, and naive thinking characterizes the SC community or gamers. | ||
|
oxKnu
1256 Posts
On January 20 2022 02:44 ox.tQ wrote: How are we defining better or worse? What are concrete things that MS is speculated to do or not do with respect to SC? It would be more helpful to spell out the implications concretely. I am quite ignorant about this topic myself. But using my own common sense, I'd say all signs point to little or no change in terms of future investments by MS into SC (e.g., providing prize pools for old or new events, preventing or fixing bugs/glitches, updating ladder map pool in time, advertising SC to increase player base, implementing new balancing patches, developing SC3 or another SC1 expansion, etc.). This game simply does not offer much return on investments from a corporate point of view. There are business and competitive pressures, which have dramatically increased during the pandemic period, guiding the decisions of corporations such as MS. The needs, expectations and demands of a small consumer base such as ours are in many ways irrelevant, unimportant and unprofitable from a corporate point of view. Microsoft is no different in my opinion. Add to that the fact that the small player base of SC has continued to play the game for many years now with little or no expectations from Blizzard/Activision. The game has been, is and will continue to be "good enough" from the perspective of past and current owners of SC. Investing more corporate resources and time into enhancing the experience of the game constitutes diminishing returns and I dare say it would do nothing to increase the player base and company revenues in any significant way. This is precisely why it has not been done before. This is partly because even if SC had all the fancy updates/changes that the current small player base demands or desires, the game as a whole would still not have much mass appeal to attract more players and generate more revenue. It is a very old game. It is a very difficult and frustrating game to play, especially compared to the playability and short learning curve of popular games today. It has problems at the software level, both for playing and making maps. And the list goes on. I don't know. It seems to me that a very strong current of impractical, idealistic, and naive thinking characterizes the SC community or gamers. Let me help you with a quote that might clear the picture for you: Some people are like clouds. When they go away, it's a brighter day. The perfect description of what this acquisition is all about. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
lost dedicated
41 Posts
if they overhaul sc2 multiplayer i'd give it a shot, but for now i am sticking to brood war. | ||
|
HOLYBATS
Turkey775 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/QCcAzj0.png) Wheras MS shared this one. ![[image loading]](https://news.microsoft.com/wp-content/uploads/prod/2022/01/Denali_1920x1080_07.jpg) I am sure SC 3 will come. But If i were MS i will create an alternate extension to BW. Add more units, change non used units usable like Scout,Ghost etc. | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4141 Posts
On January 19 2022 17:42 evilfatsh1t wrote: 3 threads discussing the acquisition and im still struggling to see how the fuck they came up with a $70b valuation for this dogshit company. like seriously...what the fuck happened there? COD/Candy Crush/WoW are cash cows. Candy crush generated like $1b revenue a year for the past 2 years. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8249 Posts
This acquisition isn't going to mean that your favourite game title is suddenly going to get massive updates, and everything is now blue skyes. The reason people think this is a good thing is mainly to do with the recent controversier surrounding Activison-Blizzard, and their rather bonkers business decisions in regards to their recent releases, all which are likely to be cleaned up a great deal under Microsoft, who cares a lot more about their image as a company. For us end-users, I'm not going to say things like W3:R couldn't have been an equal failure under Microsoft, but things like actively fucking over their old userbase is a lot less likely to have happened. | ||
|
art_of_turtle
United States1204 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22238 Posts
On January 20 2022 20:01 art_of_turtle wrote: Your away that game pass isn't the only way to play right? A sure fire way to kill a game and community is to make it pay to play, like adding it to their Microsoft game pass for $9.99 a month. Some people want to buy individual games for $50-60. Some people want to pay $9.99 a month to play any of 100+ games. Both can co-exist. | ||
| ||
