• @Wodge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    151 year ago

    Based on what? 4 games? Acti/Blizzard aren’t the publishing powerhouse they once were. They have Warcraft, Diablo, CoD and Hearthstone. Yes, there is also King, but all that is f2p mobile jank.

    • imaBEES
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      Apparently King is the money-printing machine that this deal was primarily about, all the Activision/Blizzard games are just a bonus

      • @Wodge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        I don’t doubt this to be true, but all the attempts to block the deal have centered around Call of Duty.

        • Eochaid
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s only because of Sony. They’re the only ones that kept bringing up CoD - accusing, without evidence, that MS is going to make it exclusive to Xbox.

          Phil Spencer / Microsoft only ever talked about CoD in response to Sony’s allegations - and that was to say they have no intention of taking CoD from PS and to offer long term deals as assurance.

          And furthermore, to confirm that because they’re a distant #3 in the market, cutting off Activision’s biggest game from the current market leader would be a great way to cut off a big chunk of their new acquisition’s revenue.

          • @Wodge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            I agree completely, I actually want this deal to go through for a few reasons.

            1. I want CoD on game pass so I don’t have to feel guilty about dropping the game after 2 weeks into season 2.
            2. I want Sony to get a kick up the arse and stop being 100% reliant on third person action adventures. I want a new Killzone and Resistance.
            3. Phil Spencer, while being a corporate executive, seems genuine, and he actually plays games. Jim Ryan on the other hand, comes across as bit of a cockend.