4 ms·

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 b

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.

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.