739
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
739 points (98.9% liked)
Not The Onion
11859 readers
378 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The problem is that Microsoft is no monopoly in gaming.
They have the money to basically buy any studio they want if they could, Nintendo and Sony included.
Their gaming division isn’t a monopoly, but with their parents funding yeah they could be and that’s the problem. They could buy everyone up and leave them selves alone in the market.
I agree it's a problem but without Microsoft being a monopoly in gaming, no watchdog will do anything about it.
The FTC was trying to do something. Than Microsoft convinced them they weren’t going to do X if they sold Y, so they let the cloud gaming go, and then immediately did what they said they wouldn’t.
If they didn’t lie to the FTC they would have done something about it than and there.
It’s not a monopoly until it is, and that’s what they are trying to avoid, stuff getting to that point in the first place.
Are you referring to the ABK layoffs? Or something else here?
Yes, they let the cloud gaming go so the EU wouldn’t deem them a monopoly, they than told the FTC they weren’t going to lay anyone off. And a month later or so they laid off 2000 employees while using the excuse it was happening anyways regardless of the merger.
What other merger was there you could be confusing this with?
I wasn't confusing any merger, I was wondering what action specifically you were referring to is all. There were a few different points the FTC was concerned with in that case.
So you want to do something about it after they are a monopoly?
Me? Why me? You were talking about countries and I was explaining that countries don't apply monopoly laws to non-monopolies.
Sorry, replied to the wrong guy. Disregard.
Actually the laws are meant to apply BEFORE that happens.
What good is trying to stop a monopoly after it’s fully established? You need to deal with it when it starts, not when it’s done.