• @Tempotown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    61 year ago

    Because Sony is so far ahead in the console battle that it’s important they have competition (Nintendo is not competition).

    There’s a push and pull here in terms of exclusives being bad but also having Sony becoming a monopoly / having no completion would also be bad.

    • @Melonpoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      And Microsoft becoming a monopoly/ having no competition is good? How is anyone supposed to complete with a billion dollar company who can just out buy the competition?

      I take it that if Sony responded with buying out 2K and making all those games exclusive you’d be fine with it because that’s healthy competition for Microsoft?

      • @Crazycarl1@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        61 year ago

        Just waiting for Amazon to buy EA or Ubisoft and have them say its exclusice for Amazon Luna subscribers and gamers to go “wow, this is great I can finally play Assassins Creed on my phone and it increases competition!”

    • @wcSyndrome@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      I very much agree competition is good but this should be brought about by Microsoft producing competitive games/services rather than purchasing more of the industry. For the record, I don’t like the idea of Sony or another large corporation buying other studios or publishers either

      • @Tempotown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Even Microsoft agrees they’d prefer to do it by producing competitive games, which isn’t in question here though. The dispute is whether this gives Microsoft an anti-competitive monopoly.

        Even though mergers of this size aren’t good for gamers, it doesn’t even put Microsoft anywhere near equal footing with Sony, never mind giving Microsoft a monopoly.