5 ms·

Because the person you responded to just answered that question? It is because Microsoft isn't anywhere close to being a monopoly in games. You could have jus

by stale2002 3y ago

Because the person you responded to just answered that question? It is because Microsoft isn't anywhere close to being a monopoly in games. You could have just read the comment to get the answer to your question.

micromacrofoot 3y ago
It's not a monopoly but I think it's fair to express frustration towards the lack of legislation preventing what's clearly anti-competitive behavior. It doesn't seem very helpful for people to continually state what the current laws are as if that makes this better somehow.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  How is it stopping anyone from coming in and competing? It's not like they're selling games at a loss to kill the competition.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    They’re giving them away for a small monthly fee with their console subscription. How the hell is this any different, if not worse, than the anti-competitive behavior that Microsoft was brought to court for in the 90s?
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      So you think that Microsoft is going to run their gaming business at a loss until all the other gaming studios go out of business, then jack up the prices? If not, I don't see what the problem is. It isn't anti-completive to simply sell a product for a better price unless you are dumping (selling under cost to drive competitors out of business).
      - fernandotakai 3y ago
        > So you think that Microsoft is going to run their gaming business at a loss until all the other gaming studios go out of business, then jack up the prices? i wish people realize that king is probably earning more than activision and blizzard combined. and guess what? king is a mobile app company, nothing to do with xbox's main business.
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        That's a really good point. It's also weird to talk about the customer impact of monopolies when the cash cow is garbage free to play games
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > How the hell is this any different it is significantly different because back then Microsoft was close to being a monopoly in the relevant market. Thats the difference. Microsoft is not that in video games right now. Giving stuff away for free or cheap and bundling is completely fine if the company doing it isn't even close to being a monopoly. > than the anti-competitive behavior that Microsoft was brought to court for in the 90s? The anti competitive behavior that they were brought to court for was not bundling. Instead, it was for being close to a monopoly while also engaging in bundling. Bundling is only anti-competitive if the company doing it is close to being a monopoly.
edgyquant 3y ago
Show me where I mentioned the word monopoly. You can’t, because I said anti-competitive.
- stale2002 3y ago
  Ok, and it is not anti-competitive because microsoft isn't anywhere close to being a monopoly. Thats the answer to the question. This answer was already given to you.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Why do you insist on throwing the red herring “monopoly?” You don’t have to be a monopoly to be anti-competitive. Again, Microsoft was not a “monopoly” in the 90s when they were trust busted.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > Why do you insist on throwing the red herring “monopoly?” It is not a red herring. Instead, it is the most important factor for determining if something is illegally anticompetitive. * if a company does not have a large enough percentage of the market, then many actions become completely legal* <------ (hint. This is the central point and is completely uncontroversial) > Again, Microsoft was not a “monopoly” in the 90s It had over 70% of the relevant market. According to court precedent ,that is absolutely within the definition of having monopoly power. And Microsoft has no where close to that amount of monopoly power for anti trust laws to apply. > You don’t have to be a monopoly to be anti-competitive. You quite literally do have to have a large enough percentage of the market for something to be anti competitive. If you do not have a large percentage of the market, then whole swaths of things are not illegal, that would be illegal if a large market share firm did the same action. Is it literally a factor that determines if anti trust law applies. This isn't controversial. Feel free to look up all the information on the FTC website, if you actually care. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...

micromacrofoot 3y ago

It's not a monopoly but I think it's fair to express frustration towards the lack of legislation preventing what's clearly anti-competitive behavior. It doesn't seem very helpful for people to continually state what the current laws are as if that makes this better somehow.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
How is it stopping anyone from coming in and competing? It's not like they're selling games at a loss to kill the competition.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  They’re giving them away for a small monthly fee with their console subscription. How the hell is this any different, if not worse, than the anti-competitive behavior that Microsoft was brought to court for in the 90s?
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    So you think that Microsoft is going to run their gaming business at a loss until all the other gaming studios go out of business, then jack up the prices? If not, I don't see what the problem is. It isn't anti-completive to simply sell a product for a better price unless you are dumping (selling under cost to drive competitors out of business).
    - fernandotakai 3y ago
      > So you think that Microsoft is going to run their gaming business at a loss until all the other gaming studios go out of business, then jack up the prices? i wish people realize that king is probably earning more than activision and blizzard combined. and guess what? king is a mobile app company, nothing to do with xbox's main business.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        That's a really good point. It's also weird to talk about the customer impact of monopolies when the cash cow is garbage free to play games
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > How the hell is this any different it is significantly different because back then Microsoft was close to being a monopoly in the relevant market. Thats the difference. Microsoft is not that in video games right now. Giving stuff away for free or cheap and bundling is completely fine if the company doing it isn't even close to being a monopoly. > than the anti-competitive behavior that Microsoft was brought to court for in the 90s? The anti competitive behavior that they were brought to court for was not bundling. Instead, it was for being close to a monopoly while also engaging in bundling. Bundling is only anti-competitive if the company doing it is close to being a monopoly.

edgyquant 3y ago

Show me where I mentioned the word monopoly. You can’t, because I said anti-competitive.

stale2002 3y ago
Ok, and it is not anti-competitive because microsoft isn't anywhere close to being a monopoly. Thats the answer to the question. This answer was already given to you.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Why do you insist on throwing the red herring “monopoly?” You don’t have to be a monopoly to be anti-competitive. Again, Microsoft was not a “monopoly” in the 90s when they were trust busted.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > Why do you insist on throwing the red herring “monopoly?” It is not a red herring. Instead, it is the most important factor for determining if something is illegally anticompetitive. * if a company does not have a large enough percentage of the market, then many actions become completely legal* <------ (hint. This is the central point and is completely uncontroversial) > Again, Microsoft was not a “monopoly” in the 90s It had over 70% of the relevant market. According to court precedent ,that is absolutely within the definition of having monopoly power. And Microsoft has no where close to that amount of monopoly power for anti trust laws to apply. > You don’t have to be a monopoly to be anti-competitive. You quite literally do have to have a large enough percentage of the market for something to be anti competitive. If you do not have a large percentage of the market, then whole swaths of things are not illegal, that would be illegal if a large market share firm did the same action. Is it literally a factor that determines if anti trust law applies. This isn't controversial. Feel free to look up all the information on the FTC website, if you actually care. https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/gui...