• Mothra@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was laughing at the onion article and stopped- was that really published in 1998 ?!?!? Or is the date also a joke?

      • hobovision@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It reads like it’s from 98. The references to Blockbuster, Daimler-Chrysler, McDonnell Douglas, and Bill Clinton tipped me off this was an old one.

      • MangoKangaroo@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wikipedia says that The Onion has had a website since '96, so it’s definitely possible! (Also, TIL The Onion has existed since 1988.)

        • Mothra@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I knew the onion is old, but didn’t imagine they would keep a website with old articles still up!

          • wim@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why not? It costs nothing, appart from transforming the old format into something the current site can work with, or more likely, have the old site support tbe old format.

            • Mars@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Some media organizations have started nuking old articles to please the Google algorithm

      • Phroon@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        It really is that old. According to their Supreme Court amicus brief: “Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history.” Seriously though, read that brief. It’s a masterful piece of satire.

  • OfficialThunderbolt@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    What a sad day for gamers. Microsoft now has all it needs to extinguish PlayStation & assert a monopoly on consoles, just as they do on PCs already, and the regulators will give them a wink and a nudge.

    • Manapany@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Big corpo is bad but Microsoft is far behind in the console space and in the gaming pc front. They won’t extinguish playstation anytime soon.

      • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Except they just got CoD. Playstation is about lose one the mega-franchise cross-platforms games that “everyone” buys.

        IIRC they did sign the deal that let’s the continue to get releases for a couple more years, but no way MS just keeps releasing their games on PS forever.

    • Aaron@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whilst monopolies are a terrible thing for consumers.

      PlayStation and Nintendo still have the best first party lineups and IP available to them. I don’t think this is as big of a deal as people would like to make it seem.

      I do agree this should have been blocked by regulators just as I thought with the Bethesda acquisition. Sony also with the acquisition of Bungie.

      There should be a restriction on the purchasing of studios/publishers of a certain size.

      Certainly isn’t going to hurt Sony or Nintendo. I also don’t think this is the big WIN that Microsoft thinks it’s going to be either.

      • Kayn@dormi.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is Steam competing with Microsoft’s “Netflix but with games” service?

        • coyotino [he/him]@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, and yet Steam is still winning. Game Pass can be a sick deal but many still prefer paying just a little more on a Steam Sale to own a game forever.

    • smeg@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      That applies to open software standards, what does it have to do with buying cash cows?

      • OfficialThunderbolt@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because, to the majority of console gamers in the Americas and Europe, Call of Duty, FIFA, GTA, and Madden are the Only Games That Actually Matter™. There are a few million people that buy PlayStations just to play 1-2 of those games to the exclusion of everything else.

        Now that they’ve taken out one of the four major reasons why people outside of Asia buy PlayStations, they can extinguish PlayStation & assert a monopoly on console gaming. It’s sickening.

        And somehow, I don’t think that Sony resurrecting the Resistance series & making it into an annual release that always launches during the holiday season will make much of a difference.

        • saigot@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Is there anything to back up the idea that call of duty is the behemoth it once was? Fortnite seems to be far more culturally relavent than war zone and seems to be both more profitable and have a larger player base. Don’t get me wrong cod is still a big game, I just have my doubts it’s making or breaking the whole industry.

      • Platform27@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It applies to most business.

        1. You give a positive face to the market you’re in (Game Pass, Phil Spencer, pro-dev vibe, etc).
        2. You buy chunks of the market (Activ-Bliz-King is a massive chunk), while saying it’s good for the industry.
        3. You squeeze the company of its IP, while bleeding the market dry of money. All of which kills, or at least hurts that market.

        Right now, Micro$oft is in the Extend phase.

      • Steeve@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It doesn’t even apply to software standards lol. It’s a dumb “playbook” probably made by some coked out Microsoft middle manager in the 00s that wasn’t even widely successfully used. Lemmy’s crappy example of it is Google “killing” an extensible messaging protocol, which is nonsense because they didn’t kill anything (you don’t “kill” a protocol), they extended it into a proprietary version. You know, because it’s extensible.

        The only relevance “embrace, extend, extinguish” has in today’s society is as an excuse to spread FUD and ragebait on Lemmy.

  • totallynotfbi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a shame the UK’s Competitive Markets Authority let this merger go through after all. I can’t wait for the future, when 90% of the most popular games are made by 3 companies

  • sculd@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly this is bad for the gaming industry.

    I understand a lot of game pass subscribers want more free stuff.

    But just look at what Netflix had became after its success.

    Or even just look at MS’s track record in using their monopolies to bully competitors.

    Years later we will look at this and watch the tragedy unfold.

  • Bruno Finger@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s quite interesting, leaving aside all the monopoly arguments, I think this has potential to being very beneficial to all blizzard games, and so to us.

    • Piers@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      It looks like Kotick will be leaving after the transition so that’s a great start. My dream is that this all somehow leads to the full Overwatch PvE campaign coming back onto the table again (given that their attempts to provide long-term replay ability without doing the work seem to be floundering now, there’s a chance right?)

    • TheresNodiee@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’ll definitely be interesting to see how MS treats Blizz’s ongoing IPs. There’s definitely opportunity to improve things there with Diablo 4 not keeping people’s attention and OW2… being OW2.