Look, I get it, Microsoft buying Actiblizz is bad for competition and growth, but any argument saying its a monopoly is plainly false. Microsoft+Actiblizz doesnt even make up half of the available content in the gaming world, and im not counting steam trash or vis novels. In the gaming world a title by an idie studio could come out of nowhere and outperform any game put forth by the big 6 (now 5) companies.
This is a straw man. Nobody is saying they're a monopoly. They're saying Microsoft has a history of anti competitive behavior.
If this is a strawman, where is the anti-competitive behaviour in this deal?
A history of anti-competitive choices should not be resolved by undoing some random, unrelated choice. The only reason they would have to block Microsoft's acquisition is if it was anti-competitive.
in what way is buying a competitor not inherently anti-competitive?
If someone has a history of anti-competitive behavior, preventing them from buying competitors is perfectly logical
In the entertainment industry, there are not a lot of real competitors, if any.
I can't think of any scenario where Microsoft makes something, and any reasonable human would think "well, it's too bad Activision Blizzard isn't still making games on their own, it sure would have increased the quality of "
Yes, it's literally a straw man. OP constructed an argument (Microsoft is a monopoly) that was not present in any comments nor the article, and then attacked that.
NOT EVEN HALF?? That's your bar??? Imagine a single other industry that's that monopolized Jesus, even internet companies have like 3 options and are each horrendous with their 33%
Look, I get it, Microsoft buying Actiblizz is bad for competition and growth, but any argument saying its a monopoly is plainly false. Microsoft+Actiblizz doesnt even make up half of the available content in the gaming world, and im not counting steam trash or vis novels. In the gaming world a title by an idie studio could come out of nowhere and outperform any game put forth by the big 6 (now 5) companies.
This is a straw man. Nobody is saying they're a monopoly. They're saying Microsoft has a history of anti competitive behavior.
If this is a strawman, where is the anti-competitive behaviour in this deal?
A history of anti-competitive choices should not be resolved by undoing some random, unrelated choice. The only reason they would have to block Microsoft's acquisition is if it was anti-competitive.
in what way is buying a competitor not inherently anti-competitive?
If someone has a history of anti-competitive behavior, preventing them from buying competitors is perfectly logical
In the entertainment industry, there are not a lot of real competitors, if any.
I can't think of any scenario where Microsoft makes something, and any reasonable human would think "well, it's too bad Activision Blizzard isn't still making games on their own, it sure would have increased the quality of "
Yes, it's literally a straw man. OP constructed an argument (Microsoft is a monopoly) that was not present in any comments nor the article, and then attacked that.
NOT EVEN HALF?? That's your bar??? Imagine a single other industry that's that monopolized Jesus, even internet companies have like 3 options and are each horrendous with their 33%