5 ms·

>If at some point consumers have to pay more than they would in a more competitive market, how is that not harm? No one HAS to pay for entertainment. It's a p

>If at some point consumers have to pay more than they would in a more competitive market, how is that not harm? No one HAS to pay for entertainment. It's a pure luxury. There's tons of things you can do with your free time besides playing video games (let alone brand-new AAA console titles): go outside, take a hike, play an instrument, take up a hobby, socialize, learn to cook, write your own software, I could go on and on. You can even do other forms of entertainment with your time: watch a movie or TV series, watch YouTube, watch a sports game, actually play in a sports game, play retro video games on archive.org or in an emulator, etc. All these things compete with (modern Activision) video games for time.

swift532 3y ago
Well if you take it to the point of absurdity, then we only have to maintain a competitive market for grain and water.
- dnissley 3y ago
  I'm not sure this is absurdity. The point is that no company could possibly have an abusable monopoly on entertainment because A) the sheer variety of things there are to do for entertainment, B) the incredibly low barriers to entry in entertainment, and C) that even if there were some entity that gained control over some significant portion of it, that vast majority of people would just do something, anything else rather than submit to such a monopolist's demands. They might be grumpy about it on some level, but that's hardly rising to the level of consumer harm. You might say there is still the case of some tiny number of incredibly dependent people who would continue playing and paying for certain titles no matter the cost, but that is their decision -- they are not without agency to simply say no, and so even that doesn't rise to the level of consumer harm.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    As I mentioned in another comment, what if, after completing this acquisition, MS decided to raise the price of CoD to $100,000 per player per year? Would this really harm consumers? Would people really be forced to sell their homes and kidneys? Of course not. They'd just play another game, or watch a movie or something. If someone wants to play video games, they can do it for free on archive.org, and all they need is a web browser.

swift532 3y ago

Well if you take it to the point of absurdity, then we only have to maintain a competitive market for grain and water.

dnissley 3y ago
I'm not sure this is absurdity. The point is that no company could possibly have an abusable monopoly on entertainment because A) the sheer variety of things there are to do for entertainment, B) the incredibly low barriers to entry in entertainment, and C) that even if there were some entity that gained control over some significant portion of it, that vast majority of people would just do something, anything else rather than submit to such a monopolist's demands. They might be grumpy about it on some level, but that's hardly rising to the level of consumer harm. You might say there is still the case of some tiny number of incredibly dependent people who would continue playing and paying for certain titles no matter the cost, but that is their decision -- they are not without agency to simply say no, and so even that doesn't rise to the level of consumer harm.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  As I mentioned in another comment, what if, after completing this acquisition, MS decided to raise the price of CoD to $100,000 per player per year? Would this really harm consumers? Would people really be forced to sell their homes and kidneys? Of course not. They'd just play another game, or watch a movie or something. If someone wants to play video games, they can do it for free on archive.org, and all they need is a web browser.