What does Microsoft have to do with Blizzard Entertainment?

Quick reaction: I got mixed feelings about Microsoft potentially owning Blizzard.

127 views

By. Jacob

Edited: 2023-04-28 07:50

Quick reaction: I am not a fan of regulation that prevents companies from growing, ultimately such actions could damage consumers in the long run, but I also dislike the idea of things growing too large, whether it being a black hole in the universe, a government, or even a company – and Microsoft is already a huge company! However, there is no doubt Blizzard not joining Microsoft could work against players interests, although I only see that happening if Blizzard is not able to carry on independently, which I also think highly unlikely if they play their cards right. In fact, I find it more likely that Microsoft will just mess up the whole takeover by exploiting the titles for financial gain, forgetting about the fans and players in the process. Perhaps it would be better for everyone if we automatically obtained ownership shares in the companies we brought products from? At least then we could have our fair say.

As an old gamer I just got mixed feelings about the UK blocking the deal. In a way I am happy, because why would we want Blizzard to loose their independence? It has sort of legendary status among gamers. In fact, I would love to own some blizzard stock, having spend huge amounts of time playing their games growing up.

I remember how I used to hate EA Games because their titles felt sort of mass-produced and rushed to market, half finished, and often full of bugs that crashed the game and were never fixed. They, unfortunately, brought Bullfrog, letting down players, and Dungeon Keeper 3 was even cancelled (not sure if the fact is unrelated to the takeover, but it was a big disappointment to me).

Through the decades, Blizzard has somehow managed to persevere, stand out and be different. Bugs were fixed and the games carried on for many years after their release. Even Diablo 2 (2000) is still playable on battle.net on modern systems, but compare this to Dungeon Keeper 2 (Developed by Bullfrog Productions, coincidentally British, brought up by EA games) which remains unplayable on modern systems (without crazy fiddling).

It is not easy to say whether the UK blocking the deal with Microsoft is good or bad for consumers. But, if there is one thing gamers do not need or want, then it is increased fragmentation and competition in the gaming industry, because small software companies are not able to offer the same comprehensiveness and quality that gamers have come to expect, and indeed, gamers too are hurt when companies struggle, go bankrupt, and in some cases when they are brought up (because the new owners let down the players).

One example of bad competition is the horrific landscape of pay to win games – they are basically just reimplementations of old well known concepts from other games, only they are made to milk the players from cash, and that may be something regulators ought to be looking at instead of blocking deals that might actually benefit gamers and ensure that the games remain playable on future systems, for many decades to come.

The question is, can Blizzard maintain their level of support and quality standing alone, or would their gaming communities and titles have been more secured under the Microsoft logo? Could Microsoft not just buy a part of Blizzard? It is publicly traded. Who says they need to own the entire company? What would it mean to other shareholders if Microsoft brought the entire company? I personally prefer companies to remain publicly traded.

The Facebook & Zynga partnership is interesting, because this is an example of a major company basically enabling a smaller game-developer to make shitty pay-to-win games that could then be exploited for financial gain. There seems to have been a certain level of financial motivation involved, and as a result, the games were basically less interesting and fun than they could have been had the pay-to-win aspect been left out entirely.