When the landscape of entertainment consumption is changing, and in every other section of business companies are buying up and consolidating I don't see how what Microsoft, who is in 3rd place when it comes to gaming market share is being anti competitive.
If they were at the top or even 2nd, then sure. If they were buying up stuff with no intention of using it just so other people can't have it *ahem konami* then sure. But they aren't doing any of that.
Their place in terms of revenue earned does not matter when it comes to the business practices they're engaging in. This is the logic of someone that just wants to see Microsoft dominate by any means necessary. If in the future these acquisitions lead to a situation where Microsoft becomes too big to compete with, you'd be the first one saying Sony should give up and sell to Microsoft.
They are just buying stuff so others cant have it, they could easily just pay to bring games to their platform, but keeping games off competitors platforms by buying up the industry is key to their strategy.
They are essentially leading the change that every other forum of entertainment and convivence services have taken, especially since 2020 but in the gaming section. And they are doing it SOFAR pretty fairly and generously with gamers and competitors.
They aren't just leading the charge, they're setting themselves up the where they'll own both the product and the method of distribution. If digital distribution and streaming services is the future, Microsoft will have effectively put themselves in a position where nobody else could even begin to be competitive with them, and they wouldn't have to be generous or fair to anyone because they'll be the only player in the game. This is literally why yall are against Amazon jumping in and pulling these moves, because they already do this shyt in their industry, but you're fine with Microsoft doing it because you can get stan points on a message board.
Their place in terms of revenue earned does not matter when it comes to the business practices they're engaging in. This is the logic of someone that just wants to see Microsoft dominate by any means necessary. If in the future these acquisitions lead to a situation where Microsoft becomes too big to compete with, you'd be the first one saying Sony should give up and sell to Microsoft.
They are just buying stuff so others cant have it, they could easily just pay to bring games to their platform, but keeping games off competitors platforms by buying up the industry is key to their strategy.
They aren't just leading the charge, they're setting themselves up the where they'll own both the product and the method of distribution. If digital distribution and streaming services is the future, Microsoft will have effectively put themselves in a position where nobody else could even begin to be competitive with them, and they wouldn't have to be generous or fair to anyone because they'll be the only player in the game. This is literally why yall are against Amazon jumping in and pulling these moves, because they already do this shyt in their industry, but you're fine with Microsoft doing it because you can get stan points on a message board.
nikkas literally be like "wouldn't yall want Microsoft to buy everything? You wouldn't want a company like Amazon getting involved right?"
When microsoft literally wrote the book on leveraging money to kill competitors. Amazon leads by the precedents set by Microsoft. And microsoft was also to first tech company to invest tons of money in lobbying to skirt anti trust laws.
they've spent damn near 100 billion on acquisitions in the past 5 years, that might not account for every major publishers but its far more than even embracer or tencent considering the size of these acquisitions.
Activision/blizzard/king are three major publishers in one, the size of it completely dwarfs both sony and Microsoft combined studios together. If what they say is true and this isn't the last major acquisition for them, then yeah, thats not really competitive thats straight up monopolizing. Its not as if they didn't have countless opportunities to put out quality games and build quality studios over the last 20 years, they could have always bought studios like double fine, mojang, inxile, play dead, obsidian, etc. they chose not to build out their library of studios or games and completely dropped the ball on building healthy 3rd party relationships. They really have no one to blame but themselves for why they've fallen so far behind.
course correcting that doesn't mean you have to outspend the competition it means you just need to finally manage your studios and resource sbetter and make quality products.
its like owning a bakery and instead of learning how to bake you just start buying all the other bakeries on the block. This is what people feared when Microsoft first entered gaming that they would treat it how they treat windows.
just uncreative and tacky. they've just bought so many publishers and devs at this point they literally have no real identity anymore besides a subscription service for a smattering of random AA games. They really are just the western Tencent
Xbox doesn't have a Miyamoto, Sakurai, Barlog, Druckmann, or just any real type of visionary that guides their software pipeline. It's very Microsoft
Weren't Google, Amazon, and Facebook recently in front of congress over anti trust issues?
What anti competitive business practices has Sony engaged in? How have they used their position to damage competition? Just because Microsoft fukked themselves during the 360 era and then nearly abandoned the gaming industry when the kinect failed to live up to the wii's success doesn't mean Sony did anything to damage Microsoft.
Sony dug themselves out of a hole after the ps3 by offering better products while Microsoft screwed their own market share trying to copy Nintendo.
Microsoft did it before with the 360 before they tried following the wii and chasing the casual market, Nintendo did it in the mobile game market, the wii, and is currently doing it again with the switch, just by having more innovative products.
And Sony had nothing to do with Sega exiting the console market, Sega did it to themselves by releasing 3 failed consoles, pissing off 3rd parties, and going to war with themselves in that SoA vs SoJ beef.
Google, Amazon, and Facebook aren't monopolies simply because they bought other companies they're monopolies because they reached market dominance in their fields and whenever someone else comes up with a good idea they use their positions of market dominance to crush them with either direct competition or buy them out.
Nintendo left the same sector of the market as Sony after the GameCube. Since that time they haven't really tried to directly compete with Sony. Their target customer is entirely different than Sony's target demographic or do you see Sony making all these games targeting young children?
You're crazy if you don't think Sony's overwhelming dominance of the console space for over a decade didn't contribute to SEGA's decline and they weren't trying to come up with a system to top them. They were direct competition to each other. Sega basically filled the space Microsoft does now except SEGA went to bankruptcy and honestly if it wasn't Microsoft and just some regular company Xbox would definitely be out of this space.
The Xbox 360 being romanticized like it is is weird. That system came out a year before Sony and it never lead by really any more the entire generation than those 1st year sales and due to the world wide market the PS3 still passed it because they basically managed to get traction in a few major markets.
I won't disagree that the opportunity the PS3 gave them was squandered but Sony wasn't really even that weakened by the 360. Hell Sony defined their style of games most praise here in that generation.
Google, Amazon, and Facebook aren't monopolies simply because they bought other companies they're monopolies because they reached market dominance in their fields and whenever someone else comes up with a good idea they use their positions of market dominance to crush them with either direct competition or buy them out.
Google was in trouble for signing deals with mobile carriers to give their search engine priority over their competitors, they also had a second lawsuit for signing deals to have control over ad's shown on different websites. Amazon got in trouble because they were collecting data on 3rd party products sold on their website, using that data to develop their own brands and then advertising their own brands over 3rd party product on their website. Facebook was threatening to rip off ideas from other social media sites, using their revenue to promote their version of those sites in order to force them to sell to Facebook.
The only thing in common with those companies is the fact that they leveraged money and used insider data to eliminate competition.
if you read what the CMA are saying about the merger, it sounds like Microsoft is dangerously close to being able to operate like Amazon was before they got in trouble.
Microsoft already has a combination of assets that is difficult for other cloud gaming service providers to match. By having a large and well-distributed cloud infrastructure, Microsoft will be able to host games on its servers on preferential terms and reach gamers throughout the world without having to pay a fee to third- party cloud platforms. By having Windows, the OS where the vast majority of PC games are played, Microsoft can stream games to Windows PCs without having to pay an expensive Windows licensing fee and may be able to design and test games made for Windows more effectively than rivals. And by having an existing console ecosystem, Microsoft has an existing user base of gamers to which it can promote its cloud gaming services, as well as a range of popular games that it can offer.
The Merger would, therefore, bring together the company in a uniquely strong position to offer cloud gaming services with one of the industry’s strongest gaming catalogues. The CMA is concerned that, by leveraging ABK’s content and Microsoft’s wider ecosystem, Microsoft will have an unparalleled advantage over current and potential cloud gaming service providers. This could result in increased concentration in cloud gaming services or the market ‘tipping’ to Microsoft, and ultimately deny consumers the benefits of competition between new and emerging providers vying to succeed in cloud gaming. The CMA recognises that, if Microsoft were to significantly increase its market power in cloud gaming services, this could have knock-on effects on independent game developers and publishers who compete against Microsoft’s own gaming portfolio, and who could be disadvantaged in a number of ways, such as by having to pay higher fees or by being demoted on Microsoft’s gaming ecosystem.
Nintendo left the same sector of the market as Sony after the GameCube. Since that time they haven't really tried to directly compete with Sony. Their target customer is entirely different than Sony's target demographic or do you see Sony making all these games targeting young children?
This literally means nothing, and has nothing to do with Sony being anti competitive, they're still able to dominate Sony strictly by creating more innovative products.
You're crazy if you don't think Sony's overwhelming dominance of the console space for over a decade didn't contribute to SEGA's decline and they weren't trying to come up with a system to top them. They were direct competition to each other. Sega basically filled the space Microsoft does now except SEGA went to bankruptcy and honestly if it wasn't Microsoft and just some regular company Xbox would definitely be out of this space.
And you're full of shyt if you think Sony had anything to do with Sega releasing the failed Sega cd and Sega Neptune, then creating the Saturn which was more expensive, hard to develop for, and had a surprise release that pissed of devs. Who then had to rush unfinished games onto the system because Sega lied about when they were releasing the system. Plus the Dreamcast having such poor security measures that people were able to bootleg games and play them easily.
Sony's success had nothing to do with that, they dominated with a more innovative console that attracted customers because it was cheap, and attracted devs because it was easy to develop games for.
you made the claim that Sony engaged in anti competitive practices to get to where they are, and so far you've just brought up how bad other companies fukked up through no fault of Sony's. Literally just making up a narrative.
The Xbox 360 being romanticized like it is is weird. That system came out a year before Sony and it never lead by really any more the entire generation than those 1st year sales and due to the world wide market the PS3 still passed it because they basically managed to get traction in a few major markets.
I won't disagree that the opportunity the PS3 gave them was squandered but Sony wasn't really even that weakened by the 360. Hell Sony defined their style of games most praise here in that generation.
And you're still lying about this, the 360 was outselling the ps3 for years because it was cheaper, had better games, attracted developers because developing games on it was easier. Games sold better and also ran better on it. The turning point of that generation was when microsoft created the kinect and switched gears to the casual market trying to compete with Nintendo, while Sony doubled down on releasing a variety of unique games for the hard-core market.
Google was in trouble for signing deals with mobile carriers to give their search engine priority over their competitors, they also had a second lawsuit for signing deals to have control over ad's shown on different websites. Amazon got in trouble because they were collecting data on 3rd party products sold on their website, using that data to develop their own brands and then advertising their own brands over 3rd party product on their website. Facebook was threatening to rip off ideas from other social media sites, using their revenue to promote their version of those sites in order to force them to sell to Facebook.
The only thing in common with those companies is the fact that they leveraged money and used insider data to eliminate competition.
if you read what the CMA are saying about the merger, it sounds like Microsoft is dangerously close to being able to operate like Amazon was before they got in trouble.
Microsoft already has a combination of assets that is difficult for other cloud gaming service providers to match. By having a large and well-distributed cloud infrastructure, Microsoft will be able to host games on its servers on preferential terms and reach gamers throughout the world without having to pay a fee to third- party cloud platforms. By having Windows, the OS where the vast majority of PC games are played, Microsoft can stream games to Windows PCs without having to pay an expensive Windows licensing fee and may be able to design and test games made for Windows more effectively than rivals. And by having an existing console ecosystem, Microsoft has an existing user base of gamers to which it can promote its cloud gaming services, as well as a range of popular games that it can offer.
The Merger would, therefore, bring together the company in a uniquely strong position to offer cloud gaming services with one of the industry’s strongest gaming catalogues. The CMA is concerned that, by leveraging ABK’s content and Microsoft’s wider ecosystem, Microsoft will have an unparalleled advantage over current and potential cloud gaming service providers. This could result in increased concentration in cloud gaming services or the market ‘tipping’ to Microsoft, and ultimately deny consumers the benefits of competition between new and emerging providers vying to succeed in cloud gaming. The CMA recognises that, if Microsoft were to significantly increase its market power in cloud gaming services, this could have knock-on effects on independent game developers and publishers who compete against Microsoft’s own gaming portfolio, and who could be disadvantaged in a number of ways, such as by having to pay higher fees or by being demoted on Microsoft’s gaming ecosystem.
This literally means nothing, and has nothing to do with Sony being anti competitive, they're still able to dominate Sony strictly by creating more innovative products.
And you're full of shyt if you think Sony had anything to do with Sega releasing the failed Sega cd and Sega Neptune, then creating the Saturn which was more expensive, hard to develop for, and had a surprise release that pissed of devs. Who then had to rush unfinished games onto the system because Sega lied about when they were releasing the system. Plus the Dreamcast having such poor security measures that people were able to bootleg games and play them easily.
Sony's success had nothing to do with that, they dominated with a more innovative console that attracted customers because it was cheap, and attracted devs because it was easy to develop games for.
you made the claim that Sony engaged in anti competitive practices to get to where they are, and so far you've just brought up how bad other companies fukked up through no fault of Sony's. Literally just making up a narrative.
And you're still lying about this, the 360 was outselling the ps3 for years because it was cheaper, had better games, attracted developers because developing games on it was easier. Games sold better and also ran better on it. The turning point of that generation was when microsoft created the kinect and switched gears to the casual market trying to compete with Nintendo, while Sony doubled down on releasing a variety of unique games for the hard-core market.
Dude is just fukking retarded and thinks it's anti competitive to be successful, blaming Sony for other companies fukk ups like Sony was paying money to make the Saturn a poorly developed piece of shyt.
Can't name a single instance of Sony engaging in anti competitive behavior, just makes the claim because they're on top of market share.
Learn about antitrust or competition laws. These statutes protect consumers from predatory business practices by ensuring fair competition exists.
www.investopedia.com
"Regulators must also ensure monopolies are not borne out of a naturally competitive environment and gained market share simply through business acumen and innovation. It’s only acquiring market share through exclusionary or predatory practices that is illegal."
Market share gained through innovation is not anti competitive. leveraging money and buying up publishers is not innovation, I don't know why dude keeps acting like these companies are doing the same type of business.
Dude is just fukking retarded and thinks it's anti competitive to be successful, blaming Sony for other companies fukk ups like Sony was paying money to make the Saturn a poorly developed piece of shyt.
Can't name a single instance of Sony engaging in anti competitive behavior, just makes the claim because they're on top of market share.
Learn about antitrust or competition laws. These statutes protect consumers from predatory business practices by ensuring fair competition exists.
www.investopedia.com
"Regulators must also ensure monopolies are not borne out of a naturally competitive environment and gained market share simply through business acumen and innovation. It’s only acquiring market share through exclusionary or predatory practices that is illegal."
Market share gained through innovation is not anti competitive. leveraging money and buying up publishers is not innovation, I don't know why dude keeps acting like these companies are doing the same type of business.
Sony has spent just as much time as anyone else in court defending their business practices.
Paying to prevent games from coming to other platforms is not “innovation”
Don’t know how you can see Sonys decades long strategy of starving other platforms of content and call that “innovation” but then cry foul when microsoft starts to do the same thing.
And also gamepass and cloud streaming are the definition of innovation. Microsoft saw the direction of the industry and spent tons of money positioning themselves for the change and are now leading the charge. They need to secure content for their platform, otherwise sony would continue their strategy of locking them out from games using their own money and industry dominance.
Microsoft owns Deahtloop and due to sony’s practices they aren’t even allowed to mention the fact that the game will come to xbox. That’s a perfect example of what xbox is up against and why they HAVE to buy studios to compete.
Why do you think it’s ok for Sony to starve xbox of games but it’s not ok for microsoft to fight back by just buying the studios outright?
Sony has spent just as much time as anyone else in court defending their business practices.
Paying to prevent games from coming to other platforms is not “innovation”
Don’t know how you can see Sonys decades long strategy of starving other platforms of content and call that “innovation” but then cry foul when microsoft starts to do the same thing.
And also gamepass and cloud streaming are the definition of innovation. Microsoft saw the direction of the industry and spent tons of money positioning themselves for the change and are now leading the charge. They need to secure content for their platform, otherwise sony would continue their strategy of locking them out from games using their own money and industry dominance.
Microsoft owns Deahtloop and due to sony’s practices they aren’t even allowed to mention the fact that the game will come to xbox. That’s a perfect example of what xbox is up against and why they HAVE to buy studios to compete.
Why do you think it’s ok for Sony to starve xbox of games but it’s not ok for microsoft to fight back by just buying the studios outright?
Because you're too involved in console war bullshyt to ever have this conversation.
Sony has never been in court due to anti competitive business practices. They were sued for not being clear enough about ps plus being required for online with the ps4, and then that recent case about their digital prices, which was quickly thrown out for being frivolous.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/investing15-5bfc2b8fc9e77c00519aa65b.jpg)
