Is important to have options from a moral compass such as only EA CEO’s can be.

  • DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s just it, it’s not a monopoly yet. But it’s not as far off as you’d like to think. Just look at where the biggest money is in the market then look at who’s attached to who. When you consider just how big of a third-party power Activision was in the industry and see it get swallowed up by a first party company, it’s terrifying and the fact that even governments had their eyes on this merger should be telling. Comparatively, take a look at how slow they were to even look they they were doing something about all the rampant child gambling that is “surprise mechanics”. Personally, I don’t care for the companies that were bought so I won’t be missing out and I’m on PC so if a rare diamond pops up, I still won’t be in the dark but think about one of the most anti-consumer practices that already goes on in the market; exclusivity. Yeah, they’ve said they aren’t going to make CoD exclusive but corporations tend to lie in their favor - im not going to pretend Sony and Nintendo aren’t just as bad, I really wish they’d all cut that crap out but here we are. But when one of the biggest powers suddenly buys another of the biggest slices of the market, suddenly the market becomes imbalanced. MS already has both Xbox and Windows in regards to platforms. If we’re only looking at CoD, then Nintendo isn’t effected but Sony gets to enjoy a lot of those CoD players too. For now, Sony will be having to pay their competition for the games and in the long term might not even have that choice and is how a large power in a market begins to erode away before vanishing. Long term, it turns into an oligopoly - look how well that’s gone for the North American telecommunications market and tell me how good one of those is before it can even become a monopoly.

      • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nintendo is perhaps the most anti-consumer major gaming company, followed by Sony and then Microsoft. All things considered, Microsoft ownership is the better of the three for consumers, but that doesn’t mean every decision Microsoft makes is good for consumers.

          • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nintendo would never sell to them anyways. Nintendo executives are so stubborn they’d dissolve the whole company before selling out to Microsoft or Sony, though if they ever were to sell they’d be far more likely to sell to Microsoft than Sony.

              • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Any company would say that. Literally any company would acquire one of their major competitors if the opportunity arose. The same thing can be said that Sony would also purchase Nintendo if they could afford to do so. This doesn’t mean Microsoft is actively trying to buy them.

                Microsoft previously tried to purchase Nintendo already, or they offered some kind of collaboration deal in the early 2000s, and Nintendo declined. Nintendo will always decline sale.

      • DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So at which point is it too late in your eyes? When the ball is rolling or when it’s already plowed into a car and caused a 15-car pile-up?