this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
47 points (98.0% liked)
Games
16800 readers
589 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The reason ActiBliz + MS deal it is getting scrutinized more is because Lina Khan became head of the FTC, and she looks at mergers and acquisitions with the same dislike that everyone had towards Standard Oil monopoly and AT&T monopoly back in the day.
The Obama Administration had a very lax antitrust policy. For example, they approved the Ticketmaster + Live Nation merger despite it clearly being a vertical merger that gave a single company control of the majority of both the venues concerts were held at and the tickets being sold for those concerts, ultimately resulting in the Taylor Swift fiasco that was in the news a couple months ago. Monopolies like Ticketmaster are complacent because there is no one to compete against and therefore no reason to make things better for the consumer. Things have changed because the head of the FTC (and many other government agencies) changes when a new president gets elected.
People like to only focus on how prices change as a result of mergers, but until the 1980s everyone including judges also considered the political and social cost of mergers, in addition to the monetary cost to consumers. Maybe if we continued to do that and didn't largely stop in the 1980s we would not have too-big-to-fail banks or a mobile app store duopoly.
Wish I could upvote this more than once. This is very trenchant insight. I wonder if future corporate mergers will be timed with appropriate presidential administrations and their appointees.
My argument for this merger going forward is primarily one of precedence. I strongly believe that most legal questions should be already settled - one should be able to look at established precedence to identify the most likely result, and if precedence is upended, then it needs to thoroughly establish a new legal paradigm that allows prediction of most future cases. Given the recent history of mega-mergers, it should be safe for executives to assume that similar mergers would be approved.
If the most relevant criteria for whether the FTC permits a merger is "the ideology of whoever is in charge" then we have major problems. (And yes, I know this can and does apply to the US Supreme Court...)