• RustyWizard@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a straw man. Nobody is saying they’re a monopoly. They’re saying Microsoft has a history of anti competitive behavior.

    • Ender of Games@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      If this is a strawman, where is the anti-competitive behaviour in this deal?

      A history of anti-competitive choices should not be resolved by undoing some random, unrelated choice. The only reason they would have to block Microsoft’s acquisition is if it was anti-competitive.

      • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        in what way is buying a competitor not inherently anti-competitive?

        If someone has a history of anti-competitive behavior, preventing them from buying competitors is perfectly logical

        • Ender of Games@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          In the entertainment industry, there are not a lot of real competitors, if any.

          I can’t think of any scenario where Microsoft makes something, and any reasonable human would think "well, it’s too bad Activision Blizzard isn’t still making games on their own, it sure would have increased the quality of "

      • RustyWizard@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, it’s literally a straw man. OP constructed an argument (Microsoft is a monopoly) that was not present in any comments nor the article, and then attacked that.