Submitted by Brook030 t3_zu1aju in technology
Comments
Tulol t1_j1h3ei9 wrote
Shitty Reddit ai bots deploy!
wrath_of_grunge t1_j1hbi2a wrote
give em 24 hours and we'll teach them to be a nazi.
scrumANDtonic t1_j1k63yu wrote
You joke, but I saw a comment along these lines earlier
>I don’t support mega-mergers or giving corporations more power but at least this way maybe we’ll get another star craft game.
Idk if these are bots, or if they’re the same people who will turn around and complain about lack of wage growth.
It’s the same with the amount of people who shill for gamepass. It’s an objectively short term convenience that will do nothing besides lower competitiveness, make ownership more difficult, and further drop the quality of the industry.
Again the same people shilling gamepass are the same ones who will complain about what streaming has done to movies/television.
BAXR6TURBSKIFALCON t1_j1k9z8g wrote
i mean gamepass is objectively a good investment for most people
aznkupo t1_j1kbhzr wrote
It’s no an investment, it’s a subscription.
acprocode t1_j1kb2rb wrote
its really not if people actually did the math on it. The problem is gamers are the dumbest consumers. They generally don't do math and just see a ton of games and say "yea thats a good investment". Its only worth it if you are playing in excess of 8 or more games a year which most people aren't. You can normally buy the games you want to play per year for less than the price of the gamepass subscription.
Itll go the way of netflix as much as people like to downvote me for saying this. As more day one release titles try to get pushed to it, they will need to recoupe upfront costs and they will either tier gamepass for day 1 releases and/or increase the price of gamepass going into 2023 and beyond. Similarily games controlled by external publishers will end up jacking up their prices.
acprocode t1_j1kaurm wrote
its more likely once microsoft buys acti-blizz that you will get a starcraft game announcement and then itll be cancelled.
alexandros87 t1_j1hp0xu wrote
for context:
purchasing Activision is worth about 4% of Microsofts entire market capitalization ($1.78 trillion currently).
Of course they aren't going to just walk away from that.
amonra2009 t1_j1jqit5 wrote
what the fk, that’t like my house if it was on Pluto
freddy_rumsen t1_j1hmg7d wrote
Wow the US and Microsoft are fighting over antitrust laws? Something new and different for a change
FloridaGatorMan t1_j1i4nyd wrote
Microsoft will probably win. I believe all they have to prove is that consumers won’t be negatively impacted. It has proven to be an incredibly low bar and why virtually every industry in America is dominated by a handful of companies.
TheAlbacor t1_j1ih0k2 wrote
And usually consumers aren't negatively impacted... At first. But then 5 years later it gets worse and politicians act surprised. Probably because they love those lobbyist visits.
SpiderFudge t1_j1ik6mm wrote
I think blizzard could use some oversight. To make it palatable for their existing customers lol
FloridaGatorMan t1_j1ikud5 wrote
Companies do not tend to improve when they are bought out by much larger companies. They tend to experience extensive layoffs, budget cuts, and projects cancelled. Blizzard has made strides to have a better work culture and being owned by Microsoft will not accelerate that. Being owned my Microsoft will only further guarantee more games like Diablo Immortal are released.
acprocode t1_j1kbork wrote
Every studio that has been bought out by microsoft has become worse. This isnt hyperbole, I honestly cant think of a single first party title from microsoft since 2017 that was actually good. Forza 5 may be the only one, along with halo infinite (the free 2 play multiplayer not the actual game). But yea basically all of their studios they bought produced shit.
FloridaGatorMan t1_j1kbxn0 wrote
It’s often a consolidation and competitive move. The most you buy up, the less competition there is, the more you can focus on 1-2 money makers. I would not be surprised to see Blizzard dump everything but call of duty.
Mo-shen t1_j1iwi4m wrote
I think actually that's the main problem. Activisions board and shareholders getting involved.
I just want kotick gone, which is why I really want the ms to happen.
TheAlbacor t1_j1ikmow wrote
By who? Microsoft has faced repeated anti-competitive practices across the globe and just "found" sexual harassment and discrimination issues within their own company.
You really think they're better?
[deleted] t1_j1izyn4 wrote
[deleted]
TheAlbacor t1_j1j0ggb wrote
How does MS, who has also sexual harassment and gender discrimination problems not unlike Activision, run a tighter ship?
Why would you trust them to change and not Activision? Kotick said he'd quit if things didn't get fixed and he hasn't quit.
If you trust these companies, they've successfully marketed to you.
[deleted] t1_j1j0tgq wrote
[deleted]
Pugduck77 t1_j1jyusb wrote
The frat boy culture is not what made Blizzard products bad. Quite the opposite, really. Blizzard games were much better when it was passionate frat boys making them instead of soulless suits.
The frat boy culture made it a toxic place to work, but is that bad for consumers? Seems like a totally separate issue.
[deleted] t1_j1k0ag0 wrote
[deleted]
TheAlbacor t1_j1j2e7f wrote
So, you pointed out that MS has more money and resources to put policies in place to avoid discrimination and they haven't. Doesn't seem like a tight ship.
Frat boy culture is trash, but we don't need a monopolistic company consolidating the gaming industry even more when we could just, I dunno, demand legal consequences for Activision? Wouldn't that make the most sense?
Seeing MS as the savior is completely misguided.
IcyChard4 t1_j1hm56o wrote
You know, the more PlayStation tells the U.S. CoD will be exclusive to Xbox, THE MORE Microsoft will do it.
[deleted] t1_j1gm94g wrote
Well good luck. Shitstorm incoming.
Victor346 t1_j1h2fvi wrote
I just want to see more games on gamepass.
KiwiBigBoss t1_j1h6ka0 wrote
And I just want to see more competition in the industry.
janoDX t1_j1iw9fz wrote
And I just want to see COD on Switch.
hawkma999 t1_j1jxztw wrote
Lucky for you, this acquisition would finally help bring competition to the industry after a decade of Sony having an easy time.
KiwiBigBoss t1_j1k0wzd wrote
Consolidation does not lead to competition, if anything it reduces competition.
hawkma999 t1_j1k4vcr wrote
You can't blanketly treat all consolidation the same. This is something that will help bring the industry back to the days of aggresive competition of the 360 vs PS3 era.
acprocode t1_j1kcrtw wrote
We've already seen what happens to studios that are bought out by microsoft though, so what point exactly are you trying to make here? In the era of 360 vs Ps3 most of these studios were not bought out by a larger entity, infact once they were getting bought out during the ps4 vs xbone era, this is when we saw a massive dip in game quality.
hawkma999 t1_j1kemwm wrote
It's the people in charge and their strategies that matter, not a company name.
Phil inherited few first party gaming studios with poor leadership in them. And he's had a "hands off" approach with managing these devs, allowing them to do as they will.
Normally that would be seen as a good thing. But when the studios already have poor leadership in them, it doesn't really mean much.
Microsoft acquiring new first party studios is the only way to bolster their first party offering without compromising on their hands off approach.
Your point on the 360 vs PS3 bit is actually inaccurate. The 360 vs PS3 era was competive precisely because Microsoft and Sony had bought a lot of studios during the previous generation and both worked exclusivity deals with third party ones.
And again, you can't blanketly treat all larger entities the same. Unlike Activision, Microsoft must put out games people want to buy to bolster both the Xbox console and their subscription service. As the console makes a loss for the company and subscription services take a long time to make a meaningful profit. If it can even consistently sustain one as MS is pretty open about the fact that gamepass deals are all over the place.
Activision alone has no such dynamic and financial preassure.
acprocode t1_j1kftzh wrote
>Your point on the 360 vs PS3 bit is actually inaccurate. The 360 vs PS3 era was competive precisely because Microsoft and Sony had bought a lot of studios during the previous generation and both worked exclusivity deals with third party ones.
Its actually not, weve seen with consolidation over the last 5-6 years now innovation has largely been stifled and there is signficantly less risk taking in the gaming industry due to the cost of making a gaming in 2020+ . This is why you see from acti-blizz that the most effective approach is just to make sequels, dlc's, expansions etc... on top of existing ip's. Back during the 360 vs Ps3 era's, companies were drastically more inclined to attempt to create new IP's because they weren't housed under a single entity. After blizzard merged with activision one could definitely argue that innovation went out the window in place of repeatable design patterns that had guaranteed profitability.
​
>Unlike Activition, Microsoft must put out games people want to buy to bolster both the Xbox console and their subscription service. As the console makes a loss for the company and subscription services take a long time to make a meaningful profit.
Theyve had more than half a decade to put out games that people want to buy and they couldnt do it even with all the studio's they have purchased. You can't blame the leadership when microsoft had more than half a decade to change it.
hawkma999 t1_j1kgjpl wrote
Again, you're comparing consolidation of gaming companies under publishers to console manufacturer. MS actually has strong financial interests in getting out more variety of games that people want to buy. And gamepass makes this reason doubly so.
And if on thay half a decade comment you are referring only to the new studios they have acquired (Obsidian and Bethesda) then they have put out games that people want to buy, just not exclusive to Xbox. So I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
acprocode t1_j1kcn4k wrote
I am not sure how microsoft buying out a bunch of AAA devs and then making them produce jack shit for 5 years now is somehow sony's fault. Infact I would argue its a valid point of why microsoft really shouldnt be buying acti-blizz to begin with.
hawkma999 t1_j1kdli1 wrote
Can you point to me which AAA devs did Microsoft make to "produce jack shit for 5 years now".
I'm guessing you're referring to the triple A devs Microsoft already had 5 years ago (343, Rare, The Coalition, etc.) not any they acquired recently.
The issue is that Phil Spencer inherited few first party studios with those studios having poor leadership in them. Phil has had a "hands off" approach since he became the head of Xbox. Now, normally that would be seen as a good thing, but with poor leadership already plauging the companies they already had, having a hands off approach does not really do much.
Microsoft acquiring more studios is the only way to bolster their first party games without compromising on their hands off strategy. Something that I am sure you are aware the current head of Activition does not do with their gaming studios.
acprocode t1_j1kcg2u wrote
Id rather see more competition any day rather than games getting consolidated into one service. If gamer bro's had the capacity to see how volatile subscription services are beyond 2-3 days out, they would agree as well.
HinduHamma t1_j1hjlsd wrote
too bad Xbox has objectively bad exclusives. They have far more money than Sony yet all of msft paid and bought for studios are making nothing but dogshit compared to Sony exclusive partnered studios.
vandridine t1_j1ho45w wrote
That’s why you play on PC. Get all the Xbox exclusives day one, while letting ps5 owners beta test their games only for them to come out a year or two later on PC. Best of both worlds.
Skepller t1_j1jil5s wrote
PC + PS5 is the best imo, get Xbox AND Sony exclusives day one.
does_my_name_suck t1_j1jygr2 wrote
Yeah if you could only get 2 but I really like the series S as a travel console for when I go back home over summer or winter break.
Skepller t1_j1jz7cu wrote
Personally, if I had to go for a third / travel console, I'd definitely go for the Switch, but I understand the powerful yet small appeal.
[deleted] t1_j1homvn wrote
[deleted]
Black_RL t1_j1jj6it wrote
It’s an easy win for them, Sony has been shooting themselves in the foot this whole time…..
And if they lose it’s still a win, because if they lose that means exclusives are bad for consumers, then they can go after Sony.
Tsobaphomet t1_j1km8s2 wrote
Yeah Sony has so many exclusives that people who are diehard fans of the franchises can't even play the games. Like PC Dark Souls fans never getting to touch Bloodborne. I don't think it was ever even confirmed that CoD would be Xbox/PC exclusive either.
Their partnership is less about making everything for Xbox, and more about teaming up for some perceived metaverse gaming meme.
Black_RL t1_j1lpycc wrote
Exactly, Microsoft just wants money coming from everywhere, it’s that simple.
alkavan t1_j1h8j00 wrote
Well, I hope they do acquire them. This company (actually two) created nothing new or exciting in the last 10 years. Just remakes, remasters, and reiterations.
At this point they should merge with Microsoft and disappear from the gaming landscape as a company to allow new blood into the industry. This has happened with other companies in the past: Maxis, Origin, Microprose and others.
BTW, I did pre-order Diablo IV and I sure hope it is not another flop.
Faithu t1_j1hfylm wrote
I don't. I'm tired of seeing the same bullshit Microsoft doesn't offer, shit other than a gamepass, we need more competition in the field .More diversity lets companies like Blizzard and Activision die due to their inability to be competitive. The whole idea of a free market is to have competition
Microsoft has acquired enough brands and have pushed out very little quality games imo, these companies often stifle indie companies and buy them out because they are just too big to compete. We need to go back to the days when having a monopoly was illegal, and they would break your company up for being too big to fail
[deleted] t1_j1hpmv3 wrote
[deleted]
alkavan t1_j1hgrm6 wrote
But you don't disagree they made crappy stuff in the last years. I'm just saying that seems like that right price: getting acquired by Microsoft and to die as a brand in 10 years or less.
> being too big to fail I don't agree with that. Microsoft is not too big to fail at all. In fact some might claim that without ZeniMax maybe it was on it's path that way. Now less.
Faithu t1_j1hmj1y wrote
Microsoft is deff to big to fail just on windows alone they make more then enough to keep them selfs afloat and that's not even touching their gaming platforms they operate.
acprocode t1_j1kddu5 wrote
>But you don't disagree they made crappy stuff in the last years. I'm just saying that seems like that right price: getting acquired by Microsoft and to die as a brand in 10 years or less.
I disagree, i get people like to shit on blizz for making expansions/dlc's rather than new IP's etc... but the formula is what consumers want. If they didn't want it their net profitability YOY would be dipping. Its not, which means all metrics are telling acti-blizz that there formula is working.
Gamer bro's like you need to understand you are the minority complaining about a game. The vast majority of consumers disagree with you hence why games like COD always sell more than the prior year.
Microsoft on the other hand hasnt managed to produce shit in the last 7-8 years thats even remotely comparable to acti-blizz with all the AAA studios they bought out. Ill take that fat fuck Bobby Kotick any day over merging into microsoft as MS has proven they only make it worse when they buy out studios.
lostryu t1_j1k60xr wrote
Hopefully Microsoft wins for the good of all gamers.
Phocine t1_j1i27wf wrote
Let them fight.
reegz t1_j1kr2i2 wrote
They should fight it and the US should challenge the merger.
Microsoft says they’re going to do x things and those mostly sound good. Let’s have them lock that in to ensure they do.
CigarLover t1_j1ia31x wrote
TIL FTC = US
YawaruSan t1_j1kbwai wrote
Microsoft about to find itself liberated in a ditch.
EducationalRice6540 t1_j1knj7y wrote
That a corporation even has standing to go before a national government and claim it has a right to form an even stronger monopoly is a sign of a flawed society.
IHOPSausageLink t1_j1hs2v9 wrote
Paywall. Mobile.
gregsapopin t1_j1hqsjh wrote
I wonder how bad video games have to become for people to stop playing them.
dljones010 t1_j1iznfe wrote
I wonder how bad movies have to become for people to stop watching them.
Or books.
Or music.
Maybe we should all just sit in dark rooms in silence and wait for the inevitable end.
gregsapopin t1_j1j2lih wrote
So the quality of the art doesn't matter. You'll just shovel money out regardless.
Lord-Nagafen t1_j1iew8h wrote
With the way markets have changed, you would think they would want out of the deal. Kinda like with the overpriced Twitter purchase except Microsoft has an easy exit
HalensVan t1_j1j99yn wrote
Well they are doing it to be anti competitive, that's no secret.
If the FTC wants to change anti trust laws they have to go to court either way.
SaykredCow t1_j1jh3af wrote
I don’t understand how a company with the smallest market share making a move to gain market share from its far larger rivals is anticompetitive?
BoricPenguin t1_j1hsntj wrote
Good there's no reason for the deal not to happen!
Like if they won't even be the biggest video game company that means it can't create a monopoly since you really need to the biggest to do that.
Not to mention the tons of other shit the US has let happen but THIS is somehow a issue.
The only real reason I can think this is happening is because Sony paid people off.
TheAlbacor t1_j1ih9gh wrote
More consolidation in markets is always bad for consumers.
This is a company who has been sued across the globe for decades for anti-competitive practices.
BoricPenguin t1_j1iiiu9 wrote
And now give a real argument!
TheAlbacor t1_j1iitqz wrote
No need, you're clearly to ignorant to understand the one I gave.
BoricPenguin t1_j1iiwoe wrote
You didn't give one....if you thought you did you clearly don't actually care....
TheAlbacor t1_j1ikr4v wrote
Microsoft also has sexual harassment and discrimination issues while being a serial anti-competition offender across the globe.
BoricPenguin t1_j1im7f3 wrote
O look no real arguments......
You saying you don't like them isn't a argument! What about that don't you understand?
If you think the deal is wrong then explain how they will have a monopoly! Anything that's not that is wrong!
mavajo t1_j1ie5b7 wrote
Man, I hate this reasoning. Dead on example of “perfect is the enemy of good.” So stupid.
BoricPenguin t1_j1iebfa wrote
Then explained why I'm wrong! O wait you can't because if you could you would've said that already
HalensVan t1_j1jaiav wrote
You argued a pretty crappy fallacy "They didn't stop other stuff they shouldn't stop this"
They didn't really need to explain that or the rest, it was pretty obvious.
BoricPenguin t1_j1jd1or wrote
"You argued a pretty crappy fallacy "They didn't stop other stuff they shouldn't stop this"
Ummm if you clearly don't understand how the world works why are you commenting? Because it's not a crappy fallacy it's HOW LAWS WORK!
Do you just not understand how laws work?
mavajo t1_j1jieti wrote
It's a fallacy because of the reason I explained, and because there's literally a fallacy named after it: perfect solution fallacy.
My explanation was in my post. Your inability to understand that is probably closely related to why you're so susceptible to fallacious reasonings.
BoricPenguin t1_j1jiyoc wrote
Guy you clearly don't understand the topic or how laws work please stop.
What you said was wrong and the fact you can't do what I asked is proof of that.
Also you don't understand what a fallacy is so learn English.
mavajo t1_j1o23zk wrote
Lol, the guy arguing about logic doesn’t understand it’s his job to prove his hypothesis, not for me to disprove it.
BoricPenguin t1_j1o4q45 wrote
Ummmm what? It is your job to disprove me that's how a argument works.....
Stop using words you don't understand please.
mavajo t1_j1qrj05 wrote
Lol that’s not at all how it works. No one has to disprove your argument until you first prove it.
BoricPenguin t1_j1qs6q6 wrote
Yes they do! That's how a argument works!
God I get you know you're wrong and refuse to accept it.
mavajo t1_j1s4lkr wrote
Okay. I have an argument for you. I’ve heard you like to rub used kitty litter on your genitals before bed.
Prove me wrong.
BoricPenguin t1_j1s4q96 wrote
Translation you're mad I caught you.
If you were right you would prove me wrong not say nonsense.
mavajo t1_j1vnwt0 wrote
Lmao you really don’t even see the irony in what you’re saying do you?
aznkupo t1_j1kbt8v wrote
Are you trying to prove you’re 13 with your logical progression? Lol
camposdav t1_j1gthd6 wrote
As they should this violates no antitrust laws. It’s just a political ploy at the expense of tax payer money it should be illegal.
likesleague t1_j1h4i74 wrote
What are the political benefits of preventing the acquisition and for whom?
Edit: just for clarity, I am uninformed about this and the question is not rhetorical.
wrath_of_grunge t1_j1hbjz0 wrote
Sony and Nintendo would be very happy.
StrngBrew t1_j1ib4om wrote
Nintendo has been public that they don’t care at all. And why would they?
Only Sony is upset
FalseRegister t1_j1hi2aw wrote
Could be someone trying to up their bribes
HalensVan t1_j1ja54o wrote
It makes no sense the US isn't the only one with regulators not feeling comfortable
[deleted] t1_j1h8ac7 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j1gwa0k wrote
[removed]
Macr0Penis t1_j1gsw21 wrote
This deal needs to be stopped. It was bad enough that they acquired Bethesda, withholding a lot of big IP's from Sony, but if they get the even bigger Activision aswell, then they will control a huge amount of gaming content. They should be building better consoles and developing new AAA IP's instead of trying to hobble their competitor. If this goes ahead, you might never see a Playstation 6 and without that competition there will be nothing to drive innovation leaving us with half-assed x-boxs as the only available consoles going forward.
Wow- I'm getting downvoted for this?! I guess there are some MS fanboys here who would rather have shitty half-assed games on half-assed consoles than see Sony do well. This is called 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'.
Heijoshinn t1_j1gwns9 wrote
Sony dominates the global console market right now.
https://www.ampereanalysis.com/insight/console-market-reaches-new-heights-with-growth-to-60-billion
https://www.wepc.com/statistics/console-gaming/
Let's not forget that Sony has enjoyed exclusive title releases for games in the past for years. And Sony STILL has exclusive titles and continue making more exclusivity deals.
https://gamerant.com/final-fantasy-16-sony-playstation-exclusivity-comments-hollow/
https://xboxera.com/2022/01/27/the-evolving-war-of-exclusivity/
I honestly think this deal is overexaggerated by people that are Sony biased or simply don't know the history of exclusivity deal making, especially by Sony.
HalensVan t1_j1jb548 wrote
Maybe but they have a point. You proved it by one of your own examples.
Final Fantasy doesn't sell like COD. Microsoft also enjoyed exclusivity deals before Sony. Seems like this is projection to me.
Heijoshinn t1_j1ji99i wrote
> Microsoft also enjoyed exclusivity deals before Sony
Sony entered the video game console market prior to Microsoft. Sony has repeatedly engaged in exclusivity deals to stifle competition in order to maintain it's market dominance. And this started right around the release of the Tomb Raider saga and with Crash Bandicoot. There's plenty of evidence demonstrating their exclusivity foothold dealings over time.
Nintendo bought Pokémon and earns a bludgeoning profit from its ownership as the single best selling gaming franchise in history. Yet no one burst into upheaval when Nintendo purchased all rights to it after Pokémons explosive release on the Gameboy, a handheld market that was solely controlled by Nintendo at the time.
Sega had a console market before turning into a software-only company after the Dreamcast was overshadowed by PS2s release. Unfortunately for Sega, the didn't have the capital or the studios to contend with both Nintendo and Sonys dominance. But honestly, there was a plethora of multiple problems for Sega. Some of which self inflicted. I miss Sega as a console contender, but I digress.
> Seems like this is projection to me.
Projection how? How am I imposing my statements onto other people or attempting to control a narrative? Explain.
I'm not for or against the Microsoft deal.
I'm simply illustrating the hypocrisy in the arguments of those that automatically shout "anticompetitive" over this deal when other companies have made similar deals in the past.
Macr0Penis t1_j1gybyu wrote
Yes, Sony have dominated the gaming market, but that's because they developed better consoles and exclusive content.
Yes, Sony has had exclusively deals, same as Xbox, but these are often just timed and even some of their bigger IP's are now making their way to PC.
Yes, Sony has in house studios and deals for exclusive content, just the same as Xbox has, but this takeover is totally different because this isn't buying and supporting studios, this is buying the major publishers that own dozens of studios for the sole reason of removing their games from Sony's library. They bought Bethesda so games like Doom, Wolfenstein, Elder Scrolls, Fallout and many more will no longer be released outside of the MS ecosystem. And Activision is far bigger than Bethesda.
Sony supports content generation, MS is trying to remove content access- two very different strategies and it IS anticompetitive and must be stopped or everyone will suffer.
Heijoshinn t1_j1h2ms4 wrote
Your argument, as you've clearly admitted, is biased for Sony for weak reasonings. I'd strongly suggest you actually read the articles I posted.
> Sony have dominated the gaming market, but that's because they developed better consoles and exclusive content
How does Sony make "better" consoles? I can tell you that the ecosystem of the Xbox is much more player centric. So much so that it's very intuitive and responsive. PlayStation's isn't bad but by comparison, Microsoft is demonstrating that they research what works for gamers and what doesn't. Sony is reveling off of PlayStation's recognition and hardly innovates like it used to.
And the "better content" argument is baseless. Sony has exclusivity deals for DLC with studios and have been engaging in that type of practice for years. Sony has strict deals with the express purpose of crippling Microsofts efforts in the gaming market.
> these are often just timed
Yes, both companies have had timed exclusivity content deals.
> the major publishers that own dozens of studios for the sole reason of removing their games from Sony's library.
Smart money dictates that would be a foolish move on any companies part let alone Microsofts. Why would a company that would earn profits as a result of their acquisition of another company entirely close off a revenue source? Even if that revenue source is from a rival companies platform, it's still leaving money on the table. This move is to explicitly increase market share. Microsoft will have control over the publisher but even top execs wouldn't outlaw releases of these games from other consoles "just because". I'm willing to bet they'll use timed exclusivity much like Sony has in the past.
> Sony supports content generation
I again refer you to the links I shared.
> it IS anticompetitive
Companies engage in this type of maneuvering regularly. Windows has the highest market share for home operating systems because Microsoft engages hardware manufacturers to have them preloaded the OS most laptops. Google corners the market with the with Android OS on phones that aren't iPhones. Apple corners the market with their walled garden ecosystem and disables iMessage functionality for non Apple devices. The list of this kind of business being conducted is non-exhaustive.
Sony has had dominance in market share primarily due to the past exclusivity deals that solidified their present foundation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Sony
Honestly, this deal isn't going to break anything other than Microsoft's wallet. And people against this deal, primarily the UK government, are hypocritically overreacting. All this energy over this deal but people weren't saying a thing when Sony was making waves in the past using similar tactics.
KnG_Kong t1_j1hpjf5 wrote
But the Sony console isn't better ? The Xbox has higher specs and is cheaper.
And Microsoft has already addressed concerns of removing content by offering long term contracts for the content. Its going down a different path to the single device, and its looking at a broader market.
ResidualSoul t1_j1hea9v wrote
Idk how you're jumping from acquisition to removal of content. If anything Microsoft will either milk IPs or let them rot just look at Rares IPs after they were acquired, most of them were left to collect dust. Sony until just recently has been almost as strict as nintendo with their IPs being exclusive to their consoles not to mention what they did with the content roll outs when they temporarily held the destiny ip locking it away from the rest of the community for like 6 months.
StraT0 t1_j1hdvhg wrote
No, you're being downvoted because you're the blinded fan boy here..
Macr0Penis t1_j1he4ol wrote
Clearly you're an idiot. I own both consoles and am a fanboy of nothing.
KnG_Kong t1_j1hpc4m wrote
This deal is great for us, blizzard has been so far up its own ars it needs new leadership.
Your downvoted because most of what you said is fake talking points from a foreign company thats pissed off someone doesn't want to let it have a monopoly.
Game companies are easy to create the problem is with the existing IP being trashed, and milked with micro transactions and hidden gambling.
Nekaz t1_j1gqqyq wrote
Microsoft boutta activate their secret robot army or somethin