It's hard to block mergers based on a company involved being a monopoly if none of the companies involved are monopolies or will become monopolies.
Regulators have to come up with a different set of rules to block "large but not monopolistic mergers" without also just effectively protecting the actual leader in a given industry from competition.
Why not? It costs nothing, appart from transforming the old format into something the current site can work with, or more likely, have the old site support tbe old format.
It really is that old. According to their Supreme Court amicus brief: “Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history.” Seriously though, read that brief. It’s a masterful piece of satire.
Maybe we’ll get SC3, though I’m sure they’ll want to make it SC3 the mmorpg live service micro transaction game… Need additional Pylons? That’ll be 10c thanks…
It’s a shame the UK’s Competitive Markets Authority let this merger go through after all. I can’t wait for the future, when 90% of the most popular games are made by 3 companies
Because, to the majority of console gamers in the Americas and Europe, Call of Duty, FIFA, GTA, and Madden are the Only Games That Actually Matter™. There are a few million people that buy PlayStations just to play 1-2 of those games to the exclusion of everything else.
Now that they’ve taken out one of the four major reasons why people outside of Asia buy PlayStations, they can extinguish PlayStation & assert a monopoly on console gaming. It’s sickening.
And somehow, I don’t think that Sony resurrecting the Resistance series & making it into an annual release that always launches during the holiday season will make much of a difference.
It's still an improper invocation of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish regardless; only Call of Duty came along with this sale, so by your own logic, they still can't have a monopoly; there are several other franchises, owned by several other corporate entities that Microsoft doesn't own, that would fit on that list of yours; and IMO, Resistance was never good anyway, so if they want to make their own Call of Duty, they're starting from scratch, and they've got a decade to figure it out.
They are nowhere near getting a monopoly of gaming. It sucks that studios are becoming more consolidated yes, but it's not monopoly level which is why this merger wasn't blocked.
It will be once Call of Duty becomes a console Xbox exclusive, and the millions of people in the Americas & Europe switch from PlayStation to Xbox in order to get their CoD fix. We’ve already seen this in the PC market, where CoD has been a Windows exclusive for years now, to the point where people won’t buy Macs because they can’t play CoD on them.
Apple's got bigger problems when it comes to gaming than just whether or not Call of Duty comes out for Mac that year, and those problems are of Apple's own creation.
Is there anything to back up the idea that call of duty is the behemoth it once was? Fortnite seems to be far more culturally relavent than war zone and seems to be both more profitable and have a larger player base. Don’t get me wrong cod is still a big game, I just have my doubts it’s making or breaking the whole industry.
If you bring up Embrace, Extend, Extinguish, especially since we're talking about Microsoft, that is not what it means, and your definition has issues, because if you're buying a big company for a lot of money, the last thing you want to do is extinguish it.
That's not what "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" means. You just came up with three numbered items to correspond to the fact that there are three words in the phrase.
That applies to open software standards, what does it have to do with buying cash cows?
It has no real meaning anymore. It's now a phrase people throw around as effectively a meme. You won't get anything but a wrong answer to this question.
It does seem like some people just automatically post it on every thread that mentions Microsoft. Just because we all dislike something doesn’t mean we want to see the same low-effort comments spammed every time they come up in discussion like we’re still on Reddit!
It doesn’t even apply to software standards lol. It’s a dumb “playbook” probably made by some coked out Microsoft middle manager in the 00s that wasn’t even widely successfully used. Lemmy’s crappy example of it is Google “killing” an extensible messaging protocol, which is nonsense because they didn’t kill anything (you don’t “kill” a protocol), they extended it into a proprietary version. You know, because it’s extensible.
The only relevance “embrace, extend, extinguish” has in today’s society is as an excuse to spread FUD and ragebait on Lemmy.
Maybe when StarCraft 2 came out or the first couple years of Overwatch. Although in hindsight they were doing some pretty un-legendary things behind the scenes.
news.xbox.com
Aktywne