this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
82 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37805 readers
96 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Primarily the manner in which they contemplated the purchase of Nintendo. It was not presented as wishful thinking, but an inevitability. Microsoft has the money, and all they need is a moment of weakness on Nintendo's part in which to spring a hostile takeover (or at least, that's how the email reads).
The fact that Microsoft could leverage its considerable wealth from being the market leader in a different market segment to buy out an entire competitor that makes up a very significant portion of the gaming market, and that doing so would not be for any reason than to be a feather in the cap of the Phil Spencer makes them very dangerous.
Xbox/ Microsoft clearly have money to burn and are on no uncertain terms willing to use it to bully their way into a monopoly of the gaming market.
Regardless of how realistic their plans to take over Nintendo really are. They think the plan is feasible, and they have the money for it. They are incredibly dangerous.
Don't forget they were eyeing Valve at the same time, not as an "either/or" proposition either. They were comfortable enough with buying both Nintendo AND Valve, and they felt this way while they were in talks to buy both Zenimax AND Tik Tok!
its not to be a feather in a cap. its because if you don't feed your shareholders you are breaking the law. growth IS inevitable, thats the entire backbone of the way this system is setup. Breaking even and providing a good product isn't enough, you have to trend upward always.
That dangerous part was up to the FTC to prove and they couldn’t.
Only due to broken anti-trust laws and precedent in the US based on faulty ideological assumptions from the chicago school.
Any reasonable fair-minded examination free from the shackles of this ideology and precedent would show it to be anti-competitive.