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 post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Games
18514 readers
349 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.