Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
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.
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 "
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.
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.
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
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 "
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.