21–30 of 590 posts
It's strange to see some gamers praise this acquisition as if it will have any positive effect on some of the games they enjoy. In no world will Microsoft decreasing the competition going to be a good thing for consumers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there are 100 roughly comparable companies, a merger happens, and 99 remain, the competition decreased, but the landscape is still competitive. If there are 3 roughly comparable companies that control 90% of the market, the competition is already low; if two of them merged, very little competition would remain. A duopoly is not as bad as a monopoly, but is still pretty far from an "efficient market".
>If there are 100 roughly comparable companies, a merger happens, and 99 remain, the competition decreased, but the landscape is still competitive. But still less competitive than it was. So why allow a company like Microsoft to make the field less competitive when it could afford to compete instead of buying its competitors? I think a company even half as large or profitable as Microsoft should have to present a pre…
Your desire to block acquisitions in general is a dangerous one. Doing so, basically kills venture capital markets, and then we get far fewer startups, less innovative disruption and more entrenched market leaders.
It's strange to see some gamers praise this acquisition as if it will have any positive effect on some of the games they enjoy. In no world will Microsoft decreasing the competition going to be a good thing for consumers.
It's strange to see some gamers praise this acquisition as if it will have any positive effect on some of the games they enjoy. In no world will Microsoft decreasing the competition going to be a good thing for consumers.
It's strange to see some gamers praise this acquisition as if it will have any positive effect on some of the games they enjoy. In no world will Microsoft decreasing the competition going to be a good thing for consumers.
It's strange to see some gamers praise this acquisition as if it will have any positive effect on some of the games they enjoy. In no world will Microsoft decreasing the competition going to be a good thing for consumers.
Because the gaming culture isn't like the FOSS culture.
Putting Nintendo aside since they really don't compete, they are kinda just in their own "Nintendo" space and that isn't a bad thing.
But Sony having some real competition is a good thing. Sony has a bad tendency of anti-consumer tendencies in their gaming space when they are the leader and they get cocky. They did it with the PS3 and they are repeating some of that with the PS5 generation.
Not that Microsoft hasn't engaged in some of their own practices, but at the moment we have a basically unchecked Playstation and that is bad for the gaming industry. We need real competition in the gaming space.
We can argue all day that Microsoft could have built their own studios, but IP is also very important. So are established developers with a certain style of game associated with them.
Will this actually be good for the gaming industry? I don't know. But I know that the current situation isn't good either.
It's strange to see some gamers praise this acquisition as if it will have any positive effect on some of the games they enjoy. In no world will Microsoft decreasing the competition going to be a good thing for consumers.
Microsoft under Satya has really stepped up. Gaming is now larger than TV and Movies in terms of revenue. I know their cloud rollout didn't work as anticipated, but if they get this acquisition right they will have a money printer for the next decade.
Windows is still the best alternative to expensive Macs (on mosty countries for common folks), or the Year of Desktop Linux right around the corner, but not thanks to Satya.