- cross-posted to:
- theandrocollection@lemm.ee
- cross-posted to:
- theandrocollection@lemm.ee
Microsoft’s purchase of Activision Blizzard may go ahead in the United States, as Judge Corley sees no danger of harming competition.
You must log in or register to comment.
Yoo that’s fantastic news, let’s frickin go
Imagine cheering for monopolistic practices. Gross. In 20 years when everything is owned by Microsoft and Sony and games are $200 a piece or gamepass $40 a month don’t complain.
What’s monopolistic about the last placed competitor buying a company to try and better compete?
what’s not monopolistic about the second largest company in the world buying two out of like 10 major AAA publishers within 3 years, leveraging their massive market cap and other businesses to muscle their way to the top of an industry they’re currently losing in? The point isn’t that they’re in last place, the point is if they go buy out half the industry they will win by default. I mean fuck dude they literally talked about using microsoft’s money to run sony out of the business, you can go read it.
You don’t need to simp for the a two and a half trillion dollar company, they’ll be fine.
what’s not monopolistic about
Literally the fact that they don’t have a monopoly, and are still nowhere near being a monopoly. Do you even know what a monopoly is?
I mean fuck dude they literally talked about using microsoft’s money to run sony out of the business, you can go read it.
They said that they could, which is true. They haven’t though. Even then - not monopolistic.
The company in 3rd place out of 3 cannot be a monopoly lol.
Honest question: Why is Sony against this when they have purchased many franchises and companies over the years and have kept them platform exclusive? Naughty Dog, Insomniac (now), etc. (iirc, they had a deal with Square Enix, but that seems to have changed as Kingdom Hearts is now on most platforms IIRC, same goes for FF)
I grew up with PS2 and love the Jak and Daxter franchise but always hated that after that generation, without emulating via software, that the games aren’t platform-agnostic.
(I side with no company, was just looking for perspectives on the issue)
The major information that you can take away from this whole case, is just how much Call of Duty means to Sony, and gaming in general. Some stats came out that there were a good number of people who only play Call of Duty. I mean they own a PS5 and the only game they own and play is Call of Duty. For Sony, it’s a potential loss of a significant portion of their customer base.
the judge ensures that it is clear that Microsoft’s intention is to bring the Call of Duty saga, and the rest of Activision’s content, to a greater number of consumers.
How can a judge be so naive?
It’s not naive, it’s the truth. They’re going to bring their games, including COD, to the switch, to steam, to mobile, and will keep releasing COD and other GaaS games on PS.
Money
Can someone help me to understand why this is a bad (or good) thing. In my mind, Activision is huge - I’m having a hard time understanding what the difference will be here?
Xbox exclusivity.
I personally see this as bad. Look at all the local television stations getting bought up and have become “message deliverers”. There are only few companies that own the majority and have decided that delivering local news is secondary to deploying a message. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_fHfgU8oMSo]
