4 ms·

Consumers loose literally nothing from Microsoft's acquisition of Activision/Blizzard.

xxs 5y ago
The tinted rose glasses are really strong. Most large company merges are close to never good for the end user - less concurrency and competition is not good.
- JAlexoid 5y ago
  IP laws already prohibit competition. There is only one maker of Diablo, and no Torchlight is going to replace Diablo. Games aren't going to get pulled from other platforms. New games may not come out on (insert-your-preffered-console), but they never were guaranteed to come out at all. Thus consumers aren't loosing anything here. It doesn't even reduce competition.
  - skohan 5y ago
    Yes consumers are losing here. In the near future, you will have to own at least two almost identical gaming devices to play all the relevant AAA games. That's basically a $500 tax being applied to gaming enthusiasts to get the same access to IP.
    - JAlexoid 5y ago
      So what you're saying is that consumers aren't loosing access to games at all. They aren't forced to choose one to the exclusion of the other. Other consoles aren't forced out of the market. And other console manufacturer will have a market incentive to invest into similar games, to entice people from buying a second console... And the market that would actually care, will already own multiple consoles... and a gaming rig. You've actually managed to convince me that this is good for the market, not neutral.
      - skohan 5y ago
        I can't tell if you're joking, but I hope you are. Having to pay more to access the same products is not a net loss to the consumer?
        JAlexoid 5y ago
        You're stretching the term "same" to mean "new products created for a different use case". (5G is a net loss to a consumer, because you need to buy a new phone to access "same" product.) Same products are quite clearly not same here. Consumer doesn't mean "a specific individual that owns a PS5", it's a generic term meaning market participants that consume products. Consumers don't loose if prices for new products are substantially higher in a competitive market, because willingness for a consumer to pay the price in a competitive market equals to the value of the product. Interactive game market is highly competitive. Therefore producer prices a product at $500 => consumer agrees that $500 is acceptable => consumer spends $500 => consumer gets $500 in value => cost - value = 0 => no consumer net loss.
        RugnirViking 5y ago
        You're essentially making the argument that games are fungible while the other commenter is saying that they are not. The reality is that most games, yes including triple A games, are hot garbage and make no money and provide no benefit to everyone. It's a lot like the movie industry in that sense. So consoling myself that maybe someone will make a copy of the cool game I want to play doesn't really work, because that copy is near guaranteed to be expensive garbage
- ssnistfajen 5y ago
  Would've been valid only if the quality of products and services pre-acquisition were actually good, and for Blizzard games at least it's been anything but good in the past few years. Gaming is a very end-user-focused experience and until their testimonies come in due time, your abstract market competition spiel is irrelevant to it.

xxs 5y ago

The tinted rose glasses are really strong. Most large company merges are close to never good for the end user - less concurrency and competition is not good.

JAlexoid 5y ago
IP laws already prohibit competition. There is only one maker of Diablo, and no Torchlight is going to replace Diablo. Games aren't going to get pulled from other platforms. New games may not come out on (insert-your-preffered-console), but they never were guaranteed to come out at all. Thus consumers aren't loosing anything here. It doesn't even reduce competition.
- skohan 5y ago
  Yes consumers are losing here. In the near future, you will have to own at least two almost identical gaming devices to play all the relevant AAA games. That's basically a $500 tax being applied to gaming enthusiasts to get the same access to IP.
  - JAlexoid 5y ago
    So what you're saying is that consumers aren't loosing access to games at all. They aren't forced to choose one to the exclusion of the other. Other consoles aren't forced out of the market. And other console manufacturer will have a market incentive to invest into similar games, to entice people from buying a second console... And the market that would actually care, will already own multiple consoles... and a gaming rig. You've actually managed to convince me that this is good for the market, not neutral.
    - skohan 5y ago
      I can't tell if you're joking, but I hope you are. Having to pay more to access the same products is not a net loss to the consumer?
      - JAlexoid 5y ago
        You're stretching the term "same" to mean "new products created for a different use case". (5G is a net loss to a consumer, because you need to buy a new phone to access "same" product.) Same products are quite clearly not same here. Consumer doesn't mean "a specific individual that owns a PS5", it's a generic term meaning market participants that consume products. Consumers don't loose if prices for new products are substantially higher in a competitive market, because willingness for a consumer to pay the price in a competitive market equals to the value of the product. Interactive game market is highly competitive. Therefore producer prices a product at $500 => consumer agrees that $500 is acceptable => consumer spends $500 => consumer gets $500 in value => cost - value = 0 => no consumer net loss.
        RugnirViking 5y ago
        You're essentially making the argument that games are fungible while the other commenter is saying that they are not. The reality is that most games, yes including triple A games, are hot garbage and make no money and provide no benefit to everyone. It's a lot like the movie industry in that sense. So consoling myself that maybe someone will make a copy of the cool game I want to play doesn't really work, because that copy is near guaranteed to be expensive garbage
ssnistfajen 5y ago
Would've been valid only if the quality of products and services pre-acquisition were actually good, and for Blizzard games at least it's been anything but good in the past few years. Gaming is a very end-user-focused experience and until their testimonies come in due time, your abstract market competition spiel is irrelevant to it.