• Mothra@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      11 months 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
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months 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
        17
        ·
        11 months 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
          5
          ·
          11 months 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
            5
            ·
            11 months 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
              5
              ·
              11 months ago

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

      • Phroon@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months 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.

    • Goronmon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s hard to block mergers based on a company involved being a monopoly if none of the companies involved are monopolies or will become monopolies.

      Regulators have to come up with a different set of rules to block “large but not monopolistic mergers” without also just effectively protecting the actual leader in a given industry from competition.

  • OfficialThunderbolt@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    11 months 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.

      • Kayn@dormi.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • coyotino [he/him]@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          11 months 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.

          • ISOmorph@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            11 months ago

            I do use steam so please don’t misunderstand this as bashing, but you don’t own anything on steam either. You rent it for life and access can legally be withdrawn if you act against the TOS. If you’re looking to buy games GOG is the only real option I know of.

            • coyotino [he/him]@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I hear u on this, I’m just speaking to the real world use case. I get that Valve could shut off Steam tomorrow and that would be it, but the odds of that happening are low. What I’m saying is, if I usually take 2 months to finish a single-player game, and the game regularly goes on sale for $20, I’m always going to buy the game on Steam vs. Game Pass. That way, if I decide I want to play it 3 monrhs later, I don’t have to pay ANOTHER $10 to Microsoft to access it.

              And if Valve takes the game away in 10 years? That sucks for game preservation reasons, but realistically I almost never play games that are more than 10 years old.

          • verysoft@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Steam versions of games just work a lot better. If Xbox had game pass on Steam, it would see a lot more take up I bet.

    • Rayspekt@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      11 months ago

      Consoles are walled-gardens altogether. Also poor Sony set the markt rules with their 3rd-party exclusives for how many generations now?

      If you want to keep gaming as far away from enshittificarion as possible, then set up a linux gaming pc. It’s not bad anymore.

      • Kichae@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        11 months ago

        Sony set the markt rules with their 3rd-party exclusives

        This is Nintendo erasure.

        • Rayspekt@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          Which 3rd party exclusives are they sitting on except Bayonetta 2/3? I can’t remember that many.

          Nintendo has the same dumb practices, but they do it with their own IPs, which is a little less annyoing. Also they aren’t the main player like Sony has been for the last two decades. They just own the Mario-and-Zelda-tablet.

          • Kichae@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            11 months ago

            Which 3rd party exclusives are they sitting on except Bayonetta 2/3?

            Few today, but who set the market rules? They were set in the late 80s.

            • ampersandrew@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              In the 80s and 90s, third party exclusives were a necessity because you were making games for sets of hardware that were capable of dramatically different things.

              • lemillionsocks@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                11 months ago

                No no they were not and in addition to that nintendo had contracts that outright forbade developers from working on other systems period.

                • ampersandrew@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  They were capable of dramatically different things. Perhaps they also had those contracts, but Genesis couldn’t do mode 7, and the sounds that came out of the SNES were dramatically different. There were cases where a game would come out on each system under the same name but developed by two different companies with two completely different designs, because their capabilities were so different.

        • Rayspekt@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s awesome how user friendly Mint is. If you like it you might check out the Debian version of it (LMDE). In general it’s similar but doesn’t rely on Ubuntu which is maintained by a company, Canonical, that upsets linux people with some proprietary stuff. Ubuntu is just a derivative of Debian, so you just can go with the original.

            • ampersandrew@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I tried Fedora briefly before switching back to Ubuntu. It seemed like it was still forcing updates in a Microsoft-esque way that Ubuntu does not. On Ubuntu, most updates can be applied without a restart, but Fedora seemed to bundle a bunch of updates together without really telling me what was in them, and I believe it had an install step during shutdown or startup? Which is another thing I hated about Windows. Some of this could be false, as I have an atrocious memory, and some of it could have been user error, but the first foot that it put forward reminded me too much of Windows. On Ubuntu, I just disable snaps.

                • ampersandrew@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I mean…I’ve never had a problem with a botched update on Ubuntu/Kubuntu before, so that’s a solution for a problem I don’t have.

              • terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                It doesn’t have to be done that way. From my understanding, fedora does it that way as a safety environment or something (could be wrong). But you can absolutely just do a dnf upgrade and keep on going. It’s the software center that invokes that reboot to install the updates.

                • ampersandrew@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  But I use the same software center in Kubuntu without those restrictions. If it’s easy to toggle that off, I could have Fedora in my back pocket as an alternative for some day where Ubuntu gets too egregious with their Snaps, but so far, it’s easier to just stick to Kubuntu.

    • ampersandrew@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      11 months ago

      We are so far away from that being even possible, let alone likely. Even Valve has successfully decoupled about 95% of PC gaming from Microsoft.

      • OfficialThunderbolt@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m talking about the platform, not the store front. Windows has far more than 90% of the PC gaming world market share, far more than what’s enough to monopolize the PC gaming scene; GNU and macOS are a super distant second and third place. Whenever most people talk about “PC gaming”, what they really mean is Windows, even though there are other PC platforms out there.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          But if Microsoft did something so nefarious to Windows gaming, enough people could switch to Linux to punish them for it, since the last 5 years were spent making nearly every game work on Linux regardless. Microsoft tried to use their position to get you to buy every game through their store, and the market rejected it. That 90% they have currently is now afforded the privilege to be fickle with Windows usage, when before they didn’t have the option.

    • Aaron@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months 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.

    • smeg@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      11 months ago

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

      • Goronmon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        It has no real meaning anymore. It’s now a phrase people throw around as effectively a meme. You won’t get anything but a wrong answer to this question.

        • smeg@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          It does seem like some people just automatically post it on every thread that mentions Microsoft. Just because we all dislike something doesn’t mean we want to see the same low-effort comments spammed every time they come up in discussion like we’re still on Reddit!

      • OfficialThunderbolt@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        11 months 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.

        • verysoft@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          They are nowhere near getting a monopoly of gaming. It sucks that studios are becoming more consolidated yes, but it’s not monopoly level which is why this merger wasn’t blocked.

          • OfficialThunderbolt@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            It will be once Call of Duty becomes a console Xbox exclusive, and the millions of people in the Americas & Europe switch from PlayStation to Xbox in order to get their CoD fix. We’ve already seen this in the PC market, where CoD has been a Windows exclusive for years now, to the point where people won’t buy Macs because they can’t play CoD on them.

            • ampersandrew@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              Apple’s got bigger problems when it comes to gaming than just whether or not Call of Duty comes out for Mac that year, and those problems are of Apple’s own creation.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s still an improper invocation of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish regardless; only Call of Duty came along with this sale, so by your own logic, they still can’t have a monopoly; there are several other franchises, owned by several other corporate entities that Microsoft doesn’t own, that would fit on that list of yours; and IMO, Resistance was never good anyway, so if they want to make their own Call of Duty, they’re starting from scratch, and they’ve got a decade to figure it out.

        • saigot@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months 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
        11 months 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.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          If you bring up Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, especially since we’re talking about Microsoft, that is not what it means, and your definition has issues, because if you’re buying a big company for a lot of money, the last thing you want to do is extinguish it.

        • Goronmon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s not what “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” means. You just came up with three numbered items to correspond to the fact that there are three words in the phrase.

      • Steeve@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months 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.

    • nik0@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yes, embrace, extend and extinguish my breast milk drinking.

  • totallynotfbi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    11 months 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
    ·
    11 months 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
    ·
    11 months 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
      6
      ·
      11 months 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
      ·
      11 months 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.