8
submitted 1 year ago by juicebox@kbin.social to c/gaming@kbin.social

Microsoft can now go ahead and close its giant deal.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Neato@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

so if we had to pick one,

Did we, though? Or maybe FTC could prevent further consolidation that will eventually result (and is already) in anticompetitive practices?

I can only see this as better for competition than Sony running away with the high-end console market, because then there's realistically only one console to buy.

So now your choices will be: 1) pick the console that has more of your favorite games, or 2) now you have to buy BOTH consoles.

Fucking brilliant.

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

The "pick one" mentality may come from the inherent freedom of Activision's owners. They don't see any further way for the publisher to grow, so they seek the next logical outcome for themselves: Acquisition. That's always going to come from a company large enough to be a major force in video games.

"Pick neither" is telling them they are not allowed to do anything with their company.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

They could grow by making more games that sell well. More offshoot studios so they can have more parallel production.

If the ONLY way they can grow is to consolidate, then they are as big as they are going to get then. Tough titties. They have a minor duty to shareholders to turn a profit, not to grow at all costs. That's the problem with current capitalism and will lead to effective monopolies.

[-] EvaUnit02@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I'm opposed to this acquisition but let's be clear: Activision doesn't have a "minor duty to shareholders". They have a fiduciary duty to shareholders.

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

If you felt like you had to buy both consoles, that means the market got more competitive.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Competition means there's choice. Segregating titles that were once across multiple platforms (choice) into individual platforms (no choice) is anti-competitive.

I can't really break it down more than that and I thought this was obvious...

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

You do have choice. You have choice between group of exclusives A and group of exclusives B. It's better for competition but worse for the consumer. In order for it to be better for the consumer and competition, you'd need to eliminate the concept of exclusives entirely. And I'm all for that, but I don't know how to make that happen.

[-] Neato@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

It's better for competition but worse for the consumer.

🤨

[-] thoro@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Well since exclusives will continue to exist, imagine if, hear me out here, third party titles remained cross platform and group B developed their own set of games at worst through infant studio acquisitions instead of, idk, acquiring the second largest third party publisher in the world (and thus all their studios).

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Then that would be decidedly less competitive between the two consoles.

[-] thoro@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah the poor trillion dollar company couldn't possibly compete with the billion dollar company by organically building an attractive portfolio. It's not like they did it before and only lost their position due to their own mishandling of studios and misunderstanding of the market.

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

They seemingly can't compete, so this is how they're making up for the ground that they lost, because right now the console market is not particularly competitive.

[-] Hdcase@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago

Microsoft creates demand for their system largely by buying up publishers and turning all their future games exclusive, that would otherwise have been multiplatform.

Sony and Nintendo create demand for their system largely by making great games in house, that otherwise never would have existed.

So yes you're right but one is much shittier than the other.

[-] ampersandrew@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

The games made in house are functionally identical to buying a studio that already existed. It's a game that can't be played anywhere else for arbitrary business reasons. I'd consider Sony's shittier, because I have to wait two years for a PC port, and Nintendo's shittier still because those games will never legally leave their platform.

this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)

Gaming

4 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago