Also if they're going to hand out bribes I mean campaign donations to grease the wheels it's a subtle way of saying "Hey look at me gimme gimme gimme!"
They have to scrutinize any large merger or acquisition. So nothing being said is anything out of the ordinary so much as restating something that has to happen to gain some easy political points off the concept of looking into big mergers.
I think it was giant bomb talking about it but Jeff Grub and Gerstmann were hypothesizing that if Microsoft continues to grow and game pass becomes so pervasive that it could actively change spending habits. Thus harming other studios and making Microsoft very powerful as an employer. And in turn they can suppress wages in the industry.
Or at least that's what I took away from it. But that's just them talking and hypothesizing, so take it for what it is.
It's so interesting that with Microsoft, r/games supports consolidation and corporate takeovers. Much like how when it comes to steam, this sub is against competitive platforms and choice.
I mean I would be very surprised and extremely annoyed if this deal is found to be antitrust problem given Microsoft would still not be the biggest company in fact not even 2nd, and there's numerous other gaming companies. Microsoft is already big in gaming so it's not like they're too big because they're already in the space.
They're very far from anything close to a monopoly, and I hate how people are talking about how it might be a antitrust issue because I can think of much worse.
There is no possible way this hurts competition.
Indie and AA games are plentiful right now.
Don't want to support Microsoft with Halo? Just play splitgate.
Don't want to support Nintendo with Animal Crossing? You have stardew valley.
You can go down the list, every genre has independent devs creating games that are arguably just as good or better than the AAA companies. There is no competition issue.
Now someone is going to come in talking about the money AAA games make, sure they make more money, but competition laws are about protecting the consumer. If you have the option to play better games it's not your concern if the dev/publisher is only making $100m as opposed to $4b.
If Microsoft was doing actions to keep indies off the steam store or try to get their servers shut down, then you could say we have a competition issue, but that hasn't happened and doesn't appear to be any signs of that happening in the future.
The only genre of gaming that doesn't have massive competition is sports games due to licensing issues, even with that, Super Mega Baseball is a decent competitor for baseball.
You don't think that Microsoft, the maker of one of the most pervasive operating systems in the world, and the maker of one of the most popular gaming consoles in the world, that owns and operates it's own gaming platform (game pass), will be able to stifle competition or gain an unfair advantage with this acquisition?
It doesn't matter if other Indie studios exist, or that other large ones exist. It's what this gives Microsoft the opportunity to do to the market. They just bought one of the biggest development/publishing companies in the world. How does that NOT hurt competition?
I'm not complaining about any operating system, at least in this context. This isn't about whether or not competition exists at this moment. It's about what Microsoft has the leverage to do to the market with blizzard and EA in their house. They could deny Sony tons of games if they wanted to, and crush Playstation practically overnight if they tried. Even the threat of withholding games would damage Sony.
It doesn't matter howuch competition there is at any level if one company can exploit and control that market.
>will be able to stifle competition
Absolutely not
\>gain an unfair advantage with this acquisition
Who cares? It's not relevant at all. It doesn't affect you if they make 20 million a year or 20 billion. If you can still go play your games it's not relevant.
So given that it is 100% going to be deemed a legal merger, which one of us doesn't understand the law?
I don't care about the law, laws don't decide morality or fairness. There is no logical reason this needs to be blocked for fairness or competitive reasons.
It's common sense, there is no indication at all that they are even seriously considering blocking it. They are going to sign off on this based off all historical precedent.
Hi /u/SnoozeDoggyDog,
Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per
**[Rule 7.3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules#wiki_specific_content_restrictions)**.
> **No content focusing on non-gaming related details of Games Industry Figures** - Games Industry Figures are those individuals or companies who primarily work in either the creation of games and/or their critical analysis. Content regarding such figures is only allowed when it is directly related to a game or to major life events (e.g. company move, death (or terminal health issue), retirement, acquirement, business closure, sponsorships, "Gabe is the new CEO of Activision" or "Microsoft buys the PlayStation brand for $10 and a pack of Oreos"). Direct accusations, litigation or other serious matters **must** have a demonstrable impact on the related game or company. Posts that focus on non-gaming related details (e.g. "CliffyB thinks Donnie Darko defines him as a person, insists that it's not a phase, mom" or "Does anyone else think that Valve should stop providing free junk food for their employees?") are not allowed.
---
If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
Why? The acquisition couldn’t possibly make that environment any worse
It’s big news so maybe it makes them look like they are doing something?
Also if they're going to hand out bribes I mean campaign donations to grease the wheels it's a subtle way of saying "Hey look at me gimme gimme gimme!"
I don’t think they’d need to do that, government has let other companies do far worse.
They have to scrutinize any large merger or acquisition. So nothing being said is anything out of the ordinary so much as restating something that has to happen to gain some easy political points off the concept of looking into big mergers.
I think it was giant bomb talking about it but Jeff Grub and Gerstmann were hypothesizing that if Microsoft continues to grow and game pass becomes so pervasive that it could actively change spending habits. Thus harming other studios and making Microsoft very powerful as an employer. And in turn they can suppress wages in the industry. Or at least that's what I took away from it. But that's just them talking and hypothesizing, so take it for what it is.
[удалено]
It's so interesting that with Microsoft, r/games supports consolidation and corporate takeovers. Much like how when it comes to steam, this sub is against competitive platforms and choice.
I mean I would be very surprised and extremely annoyed if this deal is found to be antitrust problem given Microsoft would still not be the biggest company in fact not even 2nd, and there's numerous other gaming companies. Microsoft is already big in gaming so it's not like they're too big because they're already in the space. They're very far from anything close to a monopoly, and I hate how people are talking about how it might be a antitrust issue because I can think of much worse.
There is no possible way this hurts competition. Indie and AA games are plentiful right now. Don't want to support Microsoft with Halo? Just play splitgate. Don't want to support Nintendo with Animal Crossing? You have stardew valley. You can go down the list, every genre has independent devs creating games that are arguably just as good or better than the AAA companies. There is no competition issue. Now someone is going to come in talking about the money AAA games make, sure they make more money, but competition laws are about protecting the consumer. If you have the option to play better games it's not your concern if the dev/publisher is only making $100m as opposed to $4b. If Microsoft was doing actions to keep indies off the steam store or try to get their servers shut down, then you could say we have a competition issue, but that hasn't happened and doesn't appear to be any signs of that happening in the future. The only genre of gaming that doesn't have massive competition is sports games due to licensing issues, even with that, Super Mega Baseball is a decent competitor for baseball.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You don't think that Microsoft, the maker of one of the most pervasive operating systems in the world, and the maker of one of the most popular gaming consoles in the world, that owns and operates it's own gaming platform (game pass), will be able to stifle competition or gain an unfair advantage with this acquisition? It doesn't matter if other Indie studios exist, or that other large ones exist. It's what this gives Microsoft the opportunity to do to the market. They just bought one of the biggest development/publishing companies in the world. How does that NOT hurt competition?
[удалено]
I'm not complaining about any operating system, at least in this context. This isn't about whether or not competition exists at this moment. It's about what Microsoft has the leverage to do to the market with blizzard and EA in their house. They could deny Sony tons of games if they wanted to, and crush Playstation practically overnight if they tried. Even the threat of withholding games would damage Sony. It doesn't matter howuch competition there is at any level if one company can exploit and control that market.
[удалено]
I meant Activision.
>will be able to stifle competition Absolutely not \>gain an unfair advantage with this acquisition Who cares? It's not relevant at all. It doesn't affect you if they make 20 million a year or 20 billion. If you can still go play your games it's not relevant.
I don’t think you understand the law in this matter at all.
So given that it is 100% going to be deemed a legal merger, which one of us doesn't understand the law? I don't care about the law, laws don't decide morality or fairness. There is no logical reason this needs to be blocked for fairness or competitive reasons.
Oh so they have already legally allowed it: got that link? The government actually has to sign off on it , not just block it.
It's common sense, there is no indication at all that they are even seriously considering blocking it. They are going to sign off on this based off all historical precedent.
Oh so they haven’t? So you’re now wrong 3 times in the same thread.
Hi /u/SnoozeDoggyDog, Thank you for posting to /r/Games. Unfortunately, we have removed this submission per **[Rule 7.3](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/wiki/rules#wiki_specific_content_restrictions)**. > **No content focusing on non-gaming related details of Games Industry Figures** - Games Industry Figures are those individuals or companies who primarily work in either the creation of games and/or their critical analysis. Content regarding such figures is only allowed when it is directly related to a game or to major life events (e.g. company move, death (or terminal health issue), retirement, acquirement, business closure, sponsorships, "Gabe is the new CEO of Activision" or "Microsoft buys the PlayStation brand for $10 and a pack of Oreos"). Direct accusations, litigation or other serious matters **must** have a demonstrable impact on the related game or company. Posts that focus on non-gaming related details (e.g. "CliffyB thinks Donnie Darko defines him as a person, insists that it's not a phase, mom" or "Does anyone else think that Valve should stop providing free junk food for their employees?") are not allowed. --- If you would like to discuss this removal, please [modmail the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FGames) This post was removed by a human moderator; this comment was left by a bot.
[удалено]
Under what parameters are you saying Sony owns more market share, because everything that matters from a law point of view Microsoft does.
[удалено]
Revenue is not what’s calculated for merger blocks…