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:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

nanoUFO

The Microsoft-Activision Blizzard merger has been approved in yet another country | Neowin (www.neowin.net)

submitted 1 year ago by nanoUFO to c/games

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't think a merger of this scale should occur. It reduces competition in the marketplace and is unlikely to provide any benefits to consumers.

However, that said, I'm not sure blocking a merger like this makes sense in a world where Disney was allowed to acquire a significant percentage of pop culture, or Warner Bros. Discovery can own DC Comics, CNN, HBO, and of course the titular movie studio and television networks. The mega-merger barn door isn't just open, it got ripped off of its hinges.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that the availability of fucking Call of Duty, specifically, has been the subject of top level scrutiny by regulators in multiple nations when there was nary a peep when Disney acquired Lucasfilm.

[–] firewuf 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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...)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I don't think "but we've done worse things" is a good argument to allow bad things.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

What annoys me in the UK is how much monopolisation has messed up out public services like water, public transport and energy, yet we do very little to reign any of that in. However when something non-essential like gaming comes up, we move to take action.

[–] T_Money 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow I didn’t know this was a thing. Hazards of being off Reddit I suppose. On one hand it’s getting to be a dangerous monopoly, but on the other hand Activision has essentially destroyed the core of Blizzard so maybe Microsoft will be better? I’m conflicted on this one.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You had it right in the first bit. MS is legendary for it's greed and general evil shitbaggery. Gaming isn't somehow different from all of the other industries that have fallen to monopolies. Consumers are always worse off after diversity has been crushed in a sector.