• woelkchen@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    In a sane country there would be laws to prevent this monopoly shit.

    The problem is that Microsoft is no monopoly in gaming.

    • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      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.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Their gaming division isn’t a monopoly, but with their parents funding yeah they could be and that’s the problem.

        I agree it’s a problem but without Microsoft being a monopoly in gaming, no watchdog will do anything about it.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              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?

              • _tezz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                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.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.