And they are protected.
This ABK deal is highly anti-competative.
But money talk, if not big money than huge money, it can buy everything, how we can see, even government organs stop working.
DFC Intelligence expects PS to extend their lead over MS in game hardware and software revenue during the next 2 years
- Thread starter Yurinka
- Start date
This ABK deal is highly anti-competative.
But money talk, if not big money than huge money, it can buy everything, how we can see, even government organs stop working.
I totally agree with the CEO comments, when I initially saw him go for a meeting with Nadella, I had a lot of questions and worries....
I think they were well founded.
InZone sounds like one of those 3rd rate brands you buy because you can't afford Razer or one of the premium brands. Even though the quality is supposed to be good and youre right, it is an affront to PlayStation....
I think the CEO saw PC as this huge other market they could grow into but PC is far more closed off and set in its way than most let on....
It's much wiser to focus on PlayStation and their own platform, you don't see Apple working on PC programs or peripherals and you don't see Nintendo making PC ports.
It would definitely benefit PlayStation a lot to get a good CEO and also take focus off GAAS, a few is okay but putting too much effort in is very risky.
I don't know why they dont have Nixes porting PS3 games to PS5.... they'd make way more money than PC ports and add value to PS5.
PlayStarion branded monitors and e-sport gaming gear makes drastically more sense than something as idiotic as InZone.
If PC was getting Bloodborne/Killzone/Resistance remasters along with PS5 that would actually show some synergy and vision instead we get Uncharted Legacy of Thieves and Sackboy full of bugs/stutter.
Last edited:
I still think that there actually was a will to enforce open and fair market initially. What probably happened was that because MS is a tool with which the US government perpetuates its oppressive grip over western nations, phone calls must have taken place.
OP
OP
The gaming market is a market where the biggest companies barely have slighty above 10% of market share so there aren't monopoly issues. It also have many different submarkets.
The supposed worry with this acquisition is that in one of these submarkets, the one in the last position of the console hardware race would negatively affect the market leader of the consoler hardware race because wants to acquire a company that generates around 10% of the game sales for that market leader console, and if the case they make a game series console exclusive, something that according to market numbers and the acquirer research, wouldn't be profitable and wouldn't helpt them significatively grow in the market, because only a small portion of that around 10% of the market leader console would leave to the last one which has like half of its market share.
In an open market the acquisition would be allowed because doesn't significatively lessen the competition and doesn't create or helps to create a monopoly. Because even after the acquisition the company will have only slighly above around 10% of market share and will continue being the last one in the console race.
Here's an idea of how to grow your market share - and very quickly at that: make better and more appealing products.
The entire notion that market share is something that can be bought is anti open market and anti competitive. Any other argument is bullshit.
Basically this. And the higher the bar is set for competition, the harder it is for others to either enter the market or gain substantial market share.
OP
OP
Yes, it's why Sony continues dominating MS decades later even if they don't have the money that MS has.
Bullshit, in free open markets companies -who have their market share- can be bought when that acquisition doesn't mean a substantial lessening of competition or doesn't create a monopoly. Regulators exists to check out if it's the case and after researching the market data block the acquisitions when it's the case.
In this case isn't the case at all, there's someone who is the last one in the console market trying to buy someone that will still keep them in last place in consoles and will be 3rd in the whole gaming market share still in the tens, and that acquisition won't affect over 90% of the users of their direct competitor.
The gaming market generated around $185B in 2022 and the to be acquired company generates less than $7.53B in 2022, this is around 4% of the market share and a good chunk of it comes from their mobile games.
The only reasoning behind wanting to block this acquisition is being a blind fan of their competition and ignoring the related market data.
It will only blocked if for some reason some regulator thinks for some reasons that the cloud gaming market will be super important in the market -where as of now it's tiny and due to external reasons won't be mainstream worldwide until very likely at least a decade or two- and they consider that the games of the acquired company, which represent a very small market share and a tiny one in PC and mobile, would significatively lessen the competition or create a monopoly in cloud gaming.
Last edited: