Because monopolies famously never go badly for anyone.
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
49 points (93.0% liked)
PC Gaming
8256 readers
790 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It confuses me how this is a monopoly.
I keep hearing people call it that, but it doesn't fit the definition as I understand it.
I'm not saying this much consolidation is a good thing, don't misunderstand, I just don't think it's reached monopoly levels.
Just because it's not complete doesn't mean it's not going there
Doesn't have to be a monopoly to be shit, oligopolies are crap for consumers too
This. Seeing 1-2, maybe 3 major players in many industries now. "No monopolies here" may be true, but misses the point that the outcome is the same. This new conglomerate has just that much more capability to fuck over the little guy.
That's just it, it's not a monopoly yet. But it's not as far off as you'd like to think. Just look at where the biggest money is in the market then look at who's attached to who. When you consider just how big of a third-party power Activision was in the industry and see it get swallowed up by a first party company, it's terrifying and the fact that even governments had their eyes on this merger should be telling. Comparatively, take a look at how slow they were to even look they they were doing something about all the rampant child gambling that is "surprise mechanics". Personally, I don't care for the companies that were bought so I won't be missing out and I'm on PC so if a rare diamond pops up, I still won't be in the dark but think about one of the most anti-consumer practices that already goes on in the market; exclusivity. Yeah, they've said they aren't going to make CoD exclusive but corporations tend to lie in their favor - im not going to pretend Sony and Nintendo aren't just as bad, I really wish they'd all cut that crap out but here we are. But when one of the biggest powers suddenly buys another of the biggest slices of the market, suddenly the market becomes imbalanced. MS already has both Xbox and Windows in regards to platforms. If we're only looking at CoD, then Nintendo isn't effected but Sony gets to enjoy a lot of those CoD players too. For now, Sony will be having to pay their competition for the games and in the long term might not even have that choice and is how a large power in a market begins to erode away before vanishing. Long term, it turns into an oligopoly - look how well that's gone for the North American telecommunications market and tell me how good one of those is before it can even become a monopoly.
I don’t see them being anti-consumer until they buy Nintendo
Nintendo is perhaps the most anti-consumer major gaming company, followed by Sony and then Microsoft. All things considered, Microsoft ownership is the better of the three for consumers, but that doesn't mean every decision Microsoft makes is good for consumers.
It’s that if they started walling things off now then buying Nintendo would never be approved
Nintendo would never sell to them anyways. Nintendo executives are so stubborn they'd dissolve the whole company before selling out to Microsoft or Sony, though if they ever were to sell they'd be far more likely to sell to Microsoft than Sony.
Doesn’t really matter when Microsoft has stated that as a goal
https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/19/23880146/phil-spencer-microsoft-xbox-acquiring-nintendo#
So if they are working towards that then logically they would work towards that
Any company would say that. Literally any company would acquire one of their major competitors if the opportunity arose. The same thing can be said that Sony would also purchase Nintendo if they could afford to do so. This doesn't mean Microsoft is actively trying to buy them.
Microsoft previously tried to purchase Nintendo already, or they offered some kind of collaboration deal in the early 2000s, and Nintendo declined. Nintendo will always decline sale.
So at which point is it too late in your eyes? When the ball is rolling or when it's already plowed into a car and caused a 15-car pile-up?
I’d say it was too late decades ago
And yet we could stop the ball from rolling at some point...
Do you mean idealistically or do you think that politicians are above accepting any amount of money they can offer
Definitely idealistically. Realistically, this world never stops sucking.
Funny thing is that Activision-Blizzard was so bad that many people figured a Microsoft takeover probably couldn't make it worse...
If nothing else the toxic management probably goes away.
Yeah, Microsoft lacks the competence and loyalty for a cover-up.
It's great for EA, because they can probably buy another publisher and point to being smaller than Microsoft.
I thought they were trying to be bought.
But still maintain complete independence somehow.
He saw the "Please drink verification can" greentext and thought "Hey that's a pretty good idea!".
*Advertising
It's great for advertising, apparently...
it wasn't