this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2023
179 points (100.0% liked)

Games

31792 readers
832 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tempotown@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because Sony is so far ahead in the console battle that it’s important they have competition (Nintendo is not competition).

There’s a push and pull here in terms of exclusives being bad but also having Sony becoming a monopoly / having no completion would also be bad.

[–] Melonpoly@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And Microsoft becoming a monopoly/ having no competition is good? How is anyone supposed to complete with a billion dollar company who can just out buy the competition?

I take it that if Sony responded with buying out 2K and making all those games exclusive you'd be fine with it because that's healthy competition for Microsoft?

[–] Crazycarl1@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Just waiting for Amazon to buy EA or Ubisoft and have them say its exclusice for Amazon Luna subscribers and gamers to go "wow, this is great I can finally play Assassins Creed on my phone and it increases competition!"

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And Microsoft becoming a monopoly/ having no competition is good?

Microsoft aren't going to have a monopoly in video games at any time in the foreseeable future.

[–] Melonpoly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are you basing this claim on?

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The fact that they’re a distant third behind Sony and nintendo despite being in the industry for over twenty years.

What makes you think Microsoft will have a monopoly any time soon? You do understand what a monopoly is don’t you?

[–] wcSyndrome@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I very much agree competition is good but this should be brought about by Microsoft producing competitive games/services rather than purchasing more of the industry. For the record, I don't like the idea of Sony or another large corporation buying other studios or publishers either

[–] Tempotown@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Even Microsoft agrees they’d prefer to do it by producing competitive games, which isn’t in question here though. The dispute is whether this gives Microsoft an anti-competitive monopoly.

Even though mergers of this size aren’t good for gamers, it doesn’t even put Microsoft anywhere near equal footing with Sony, never mind giving Microsoft a monopoly.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

but this should be brought about by Microsoft producing competitive games/services rather than purchasing more of the industry.

Why, because you say so?