bdsee t1_jdab9yl wrote

>No they haven't. We've been told that Microsoft's Xbox division has EARNED LESS MONEY during its lifetime than Sony's Playstation business.

I didn't say Xbox game division, I said Microsoft. Your belief that their game division can't be supported by the profits from the rest of the company is irrelevant...and emotional.

>Sony biggest acquisition has only half of the cost of Microsoft buying Zenimax at $7 billion dollars.

Sony made most of their acquisitions decades ago...also, so what, they buy smaller developers...what does that have to do with anything?

>And then Microsoft, a year later, has the ability to spend something at 10x the dollar amount. $70 billion.

Yeah, it's almost like Microsoft has a shitload of money because of how successful they are in other areas of their business.

> Xbox absolutely has not done anything to "earn" this.

I said Microsoft, not Xbox...why do you believe that as a matter of law these should be separate and why are you just pretending O saod Xbox and not Microsoft?

>Yes, there absolutely is. You are plainly ignorant if you think that is not the case.

No there absolutely isn't. Microsoft will still be smaller than Sony and the marketshare per company and amount of new entrants in the industry is probably one of the most healthy industries.

>No, it is relevant. Because you are trying to say that its okay for Microsoft to do this, because Sony has ALREADY COMMITTED such bad practices.

For the last time I never said half the shit you have said that I said...jesus, do you even know how to read.

And even if I did, you are back to making an emotional argument...nothing you say has anything to do with law or market impact.

>And yes the law should and DOES distinguish something that is created, and something that is bought.

No it doesn't. Let's imagine for a second that Microsoft never entered the console market and it was just Sony and Nintendo...Microsoft could buy Sony and regulators wouldn't bat an eye because there would be no change to the market, it would still just be 2 players. It wouldn't matter that Microsoft had never created anything in that is irrelevant.

Just like if the current situation existed but Sony had more cash and they had of tried to acquire Activision they would scrutinise that deal despite Sony having created their exclusive IPs in house....because it is irrelevant. They would scrutinise the deal because of the potential market impact...and it would be less likely to be approved because Sony is already the market leader.


bdsee t1_jd71ggk wrote

>You are trying to dismiss Sony Computer Entertainments contributions to gaming.

Nowhere did I do that, but this is more emotuonal argument from has nothing to do with the market or business.

>They earned those exclusives, by having a hand in developing them.

Emotional argument. Microsoft earned their exclusives by being successful enough to buy those development houses.... it's just as dumb as your argument. This isn't some guy sitting in his garage inventing something only for a big bad corporation to come along and steal it...this is two massive corporations competing in a space both buying up dev houses when they feel it is a good business decision. I'm against mergers generally, but gaming is massive and easier than ever to get into...there isn't a risk from this kerger of monopolising the industry.

>because you are trying to make a false-equivalency but you know it falls apart if we actually look at the details.

What details? That one company developed their properties and another is trying to buy properties? Nobody is denying it, but it's simply irrelevant to anything but how you personally feel.

>By your logic, Nintendo doesn't to have the right to do whatever they want to do with their Mario and Zelda IPs

You are just making up more nonsense. Nowhere did I mention that Sony or Nintendo shouldn't be able to do what they want with their properties. All I was pointing out is that whether they create it or buy the company that created it is functionally the same. One doesn't deserve special consideration by the law over the other.