Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

i_am_covered t1_j13z9db wrote

Reply to comment by LiterallyZeroSkill in Microsoft-Activision deal: Gamers sue to stop merger by marketrent

It does not have to be a pure monopoly. It’s simply an unreasonable market advantage. Call of Duty alone is normally the top two selling games each year. That’s a huge amount of power. It also paves the way for huge acquisitions by Sony and Microsoft. Three manufacturers absolutely dominate console game sales and Activision is the largest of them. If this domino falls, it’s a race to the bottom so far as other acquisitions are concerned.

−11

LiterallyZeroSkill t1_j141326 wrote

>It does not have to be a pure monopoly.

Then it's not a monopoly. A monopoly is the absence of competition. Gaming is extremely competitive with many players in the industry both from hardware (Nintendo, Sony, Valve, Meta, NVIDIA, AMD, Apple, Google etc) and software (the millions of game developers who aren't owned by Microsoft).

Even if Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard goes through, gaming is still extremely competitive with many players in the industry. So it's not at all remotely close to a monopoly.

>Call of Duty alone is normally the top two selling games each year. That’s a huge amount of power.

Just because a franchise might be popular and might be exclusive to a console doesn't mean a monopoly. Are there games available on non-Microsoft products? Yes. Are there other shooters available on other platforms? Yes.

Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, Mario, Smash Bros, Pokemon and Zelda games are huge sellers and are only available on the Nintendo consoles. Better contact the FTC!

17

antunezn0n0 t1_j15avhi wrote

there's a difference between developing your own projects and just outright buying established publishers. the Bethesda adquisición was already huge. Activision isn't just a studio is the third largest videogame publisher

0

i_am_covered t1_j1468l9 wrote

You asked how it was close to a monopoly. I thought it was fairly clear but, evidently not! Happy to have been of assistance.

−14

BrokeBoiForLife t1_j14okxc wrote

Yea you’re right. They would have no competition if you simply ignore their competition. Great take

6

i_am_covered t1_j14pv29 wrote

Antitrust legislation is rarely leveled against companies for having zero competition. It’s used to prevent companies from securing a market advantage that would be unfriendly towards customers. I know this can be a nuanced issue but I’m really shocked that so many people just can’t grasp how Microsoft’s acquisition of the largest company in gaming should be reason for concern.

−2

AudioOff t1_j14dc7b wrote

This is an absurd take.

1

i_am_covered t1_j14oinh wrote

Really? I must say I am surprised to hear that people are not concerned about the consolidation of power at the top of the gaming industry. Thankfully, it looks like the FTC is. So that’s nice!

−1