One home, one mobile.
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
One home, one mobile.
And thats not necessarilly the result of monopolistic/anti-competitive practices from Sony. Not to mention Stadia and Luna tried to compete in the videogame streaming services and thats why they failed. Bad business will fail.
As it was mentioned earlier it is not the regulators jobs to meddle in normal business operations of companies in hopes that some "competition" will appear and succeed. They are natural oligopolies.
You yourself do not find MS's monopoly illegal and do not have such demand for regulators to reduce artificially their business just so more OS companies will enter.
Regulators will not get involved unless there are clear signs of market manipulation. Whatever people will feel like is very vague. Not to mention that people are pretty much happy with their console offerings.
So I am not sure what point you are trying to make, as the demand for Regulators to make favors to MS, not only has nothing to do with their job, there is not even a necessity to intervene in general because of a ficticious lack of competition.
Companies leaving markets is a normal process and an healthy one, too. Microsoft ist taking a spot but their product is the same as sony. Without Microsoft other companies or Nintendo could be making better products.
This is correct. I'm glad we're on the same page here. It took me some time to get where I wanted to say something without knowing how to say it. Yes.
So as it is right now, regulators can only take action when a potential or a market abuse is actively taking place: in this case, MS is making a step to create a monopoly via a vertical merger. Thus they must step in to see what's going on.
And I think everyone agrees on that.
And we agree that there are different steps regulators can take place only if a market abuse is happening (and usually this is brought up by consumers or some insider information that would indicate an antitrust occurring)
So as a simple discussion point, for the sake the discussion, I brought up the idea that perhaps regulation could have taken a more proactive role to balance competition by removing particular barriers like content control to remove the desire point for companies wanting to make vertical mergers, but also as a scenario setup such that, we know content control is not the reason why a company is in a dominant position. That's where I was going.
I was expecting people to tell me that there are advantages to consumers with content control, and exclusivity practices, or that the game industry is healthier because of it. I didn't expect I would have to defend myself against my understanding of what regulation can and cannot do. I mean, coming to this point in realization now, I see I was unable to make it clear.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
That is half of it.
The other half is what Microsoft do with all the IP owned by Activision-Blizzard that thus far, has generally been released on multiple platforms (including non-Windows PC operating systems). Activision-Blizzard comprises two of the oldest independent publishers in the videogame market, with some others like Ubisoft struggling. Is less independent publishers what the industry needs? How is that good for competition? It's only good for Microsoft.
I mean, this particular part I do not know the answer. The game industry grows as fast as it shrink. We have more game companies than ever right now. And at the same time, our biggest game companies all seem to be struggling.
New CMA Document, A Summary of Thirdy Party Calls:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Exactly. There are lots of smaller and indie publishers but when it comes comes to big, independent multi-platform publishers the list is growing thin. So does would an approval do to content on non-Microsoft platforms should the deal be approved? Because you know some content is going Xbox console exclusive, just like Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI.
Amazon? Steam? Epic? Nvidia?[URL='https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63ed02d68fa8f56139fc0c7e/A._Summary_of_third_party_calls.pdf']CMA Extracts[/URL] said:
Strange isn't it. They identified the console platforms as competitors, but there aren't any real competitors to those big 3 companies. Unless the 3rd party pool includes the likes of Blaze (Evercade), Intellivision, AT Games and Atari, Inc.
Also....
LOL, wish I knew who this was so I could disregard their opinions in the future.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
That could be Amazon, Nvidia, Steam or Epic. Whilst Geforce Now is streamable to Xbox, it's not to Nintendo and Sony platforms. And from the perspective of any store/platform selling games, any user base you cannot sell games directly too, and which is providing that function, is a defacto competitor for your audience. For folks for whom 60fps was a bridge to die on, consoles were previously not viable option. Now they are.
davis.anthony
Veteran
For the next 12 months at least, then it's back to 30fps.
Three Xbox rivals believe the Activision Blizzard merger would harm competition | GamesIndustry.biz
"Finally, two companies discussed Microsoft's wider portfolio, including Windows OS, Azure, Xbox and Game Pass, and expressed concerns about the impacts on competition if Activision Blizzard's games and studios were added to this line-up."
Ok Bob we are moving to cloud AWS it is
NOOOOO Azure they have Call of duty!!!
Wtf is that, i fail to see logic here windows and azure and xbox and COD.... in what way COD will influence anyone to chose azure ... not sure what this is.
"Finally, two companies discussed Microsoft's wider portfolio, including Windows OS, Azure, Xbox and Game Pass, and expressed concerns about the impacts on competition if Activision Blizzard's games and studios were added to this line-up."
Ok Bob we are moving to cloud AWS it is
NOOOOO Azure they have Call of duty!!!
Wtf is that, i fail to see logic here windows and azure and xbox and COD.... in what way COD will influence anyone to chose azure ... not sure what this is.
When the PS3 launch this was easier to drop cost of console semi conductor. PS4 release with a HDD not the PS3, this is one element where cost don't drop a lot during the lifecycle of a console. This time it will be worse like MS said with less possibility to drop console cost.
And again your hypothesis for the console price rising is false and price increase is not only a console stuff. This is not because you repeat something false than it will be the truth.
Strong dollar creating headwinds to US businesses – DW – 10/27/2022
A rising US dollar is eroding other currencies and wreaking havoc on economies. But It also hits demand for US exports, causing American businesses painful losses.www.dw.com
Maybe you forget this event.
Nah I didn't. Sony already increased prices there. But here are the key points
This is an Oct 2022 article. Sony increased prices already in August.
Also
And while yes there was more movement in the semi conductor industry during the ps3 generation there was no pressure from competitors to push the console price down. If the ps4 and xbox one were selling neck and neck the whole generation you should have seen lower prices from Sony. MS was able to bring down the xbox one from $400 without kinnect down to $190.
Duopoly's are also regulated
Duopoly (broadcasting) - Wikipedia
Also in the USA at least the term isn't used in its traditional sense
Monopolization Defined
The antitrust laws prohibit conduct by a single firm that unreasonably restrains competition by creating or maintaining monopoly power.
MS's product isn't stagnant . MS has championed many additions to what we considered standard console features that Sony did not. hard drives in consoles , built in ethernet , xbox live and even up to game pass.
If MS exits the console market there wont be new entries into the console market that can compete in many ways. It would take half a decade or more to start releasing first party titles to set it apart from the other consoles already on the market and it would take even longer to release enough to not only match but to surpase Sony's output
Of course. Just look at Hogwarts. They made a marketing contract and the game is not only missing content on two of the platforms but also suffers terrible performance issues that don't exist on the playstation.
10 years puts us a few years into the ps6 likely. Plenty of time for that company Sony just bought to come up with a competitor...
it's funny because Xcloud doesn't run on azure.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
It doesn't but xCloud is operated from Azure data centres. Which makes sense, why build a second server infrastructure when you already have infrastructure in place.
edit: link fixed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes they are in the same building. Why create new buildings when you have space in the current one. also fyi your link doesn't work
Not really. You aren't just competing on the game experience, but the whole brand grown over 20 years. It woudn't take that long to write an alternative Wizarding School story to Harry Potter, but no-one's going to be buying into it at the same scale as the behemoth that WB has grown. So let's say Sony buy WB and gets the Harry Potter games exclusive. You think MS will be able to turn AB into making Mr. Marvello's School of Magics to compete on an equal footing and win over existing HP fans into buying an XBox with this HP alternative?
Similar threads
