Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#261

Post by ElevenLathe » Sat, Aug 27, 2022, 6:58 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #181

dd36 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incentives become perverse once relatively unrelated businesses are combined. History also shows conglomerates don’t out perform the stand alone companies and it hurts competition and innovation. I think there’s a certain point where executives run out of ideas but have to be doing something. Then you have investment bankers and advisors pushing these ideas and copycatting each other for that sweet, sweet commiss…

> History also shows conglomerates don’t out perform the stand alone companies This is a self-correcting phenomenon.

It self-corrects on generational timescales, which is arguably not good enough. The last "fad" of conglomeration happened in the "go go years", and a generation of business and finance types learned it was a bad idea. Now those people are all retired and a new generation is learning the lesson.

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#262

Post by robertlagrant » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 6:55 PM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #260

robertlagrant wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't need to do either. This is a false dichotomy. A company needs to be legal, and be useful enough to its customers that it is sustainable. That is what a company needs. There is no "useful to society" as there is no monolithic "society".

When we're talking about laws we're specifically discussing the interaction between companies and "our society" or our communities. Broad strokes like "society" just make it easier to talk about. A company as big as Amazon exists across thousands of communities, and in contexts that don't even include communities. It can afford to harm some contexts while profiting on others, because it is a monolith. That's why when…

> Broad strokes like "society" just make it easier to talk about.

I'd say they make it easier to make mistakes in reasoning. Just as unilaterally deciding what "we're" talking about is also a mistake.

Positing that Amazon is too big to buy a computer game company is just wrong. This in no way creates a monopoly on computer game creation, which is one of the best industries on the planet in terms of lack of lock-in in the forms of regulation, machinery, or IP law. Have computer, download Godot, get going.

Also, Amazon is a silly company to level that charge at. They in no way control a significant amount of the game creation industry. You may be thinking of Microsoft.

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#263

Post by killyourcar » Mon, Aug 29, 2022, 5:09 AM UTC

4eleven7 wrote: post #161

killyourcar wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazon owning EA will absolutely stifle innovation, especially given their history in the gaming space.

Why will Amazon stifle innovation? All EA do is release the same games every year with slightly different content (FIFA, Battlefield, Madden, Sims, etc). What am I missing?

A whole bunch of innovative games? Skate 4, It Takes Two, Star Wars Squadrons, Jedi Fallen Order, Apex Legends, A Way Out, Fe, and arguably battlefield 5.

Yes, plenty of annual sports games, though even those evolve over time with different career modes and gameplay. But EA is still making moves in the space.

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#264

Post by roflyear » Wed, Aug 31, 2022, 8:18 PM UTC

InsomniacL wrote: post #223

roflyear wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how vertical integration is anti competitive?

If you run a business selling hosting services for game publishers to run their games, is it not anti-competitive for a competitor of yours to buy your customers and force them to use their services instead of yours?

No. No one should be forced to use a product.

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#265

Post by KoftaBob » Thu, Sep 01, 2022, 6:57 PM UTC

paulryanrogers wrote: post #258

KoftaBob wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were technically horizontally integrated too, since the entire reason they were able to exist is situations where jobs like mining were created in isolated areas with no other places to live. Workers had no other options but to live in that company town and spend their money in company town stores. All vertical integration means is that a company has direct control over most/all of the supply chain they need to…

I'm not so sure that vertical integration is much more innocent than horizonal. Once a single company dominates an industry it has negative effects on the competitiveness of that and adjacent markets.

A single company dominating an industry is the definition of horizontal integration. You seem to be confusing what the two terms mean.

Re: Amazon is not going to make a bid for Electronic Arts – sources

#266

Post by feanaro » Sat, Sep 03, 2022, 9:41 AM UTC

scrollaway wrote: post #182

feanaro wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I'd argue a world in which succeed to make vertical integration minimal would be a better one, with less manipulation and corporations vying to become states.

A word with minimal vertical integration is a world filled with middlemen and rent seekers. The alternative to VI is every single piece of your stack is another company seeking its own piece of whatever pie you’re building (and that company in turn facing the exact same dilemma — nobody builds original things anymore, it’s b2b saas Lego all the way down)

There's quite a lot of legroom between a moderate amount of vertical integration where you attempt to own key parts of your supply chain and being a megacorporation which owns absolutely every piece of your stack, including towns for your employees.

I'm suggesting the optimum for human freedom, welfare and prosperity is achieved when striving closer to the former rather than the latter, not that companies should strive to depend on others as much as possible.

(Though my use of "minimal" in the original post might've been misleading.)