> at its best
replyThis looks more like simple corporate incompetence. They never should have made those very expensive acquisitions.
They should never have been allowed to make those acquisitions. Especially after they misled the FTC about Activision/Blizzard remaining independent and easily spun off again, and then immediately fired 1900 people afterwards forcing them to integrate more tightly into Microsoft gaming.
replyThe FTC isn't there to stop corporations from making mistakes.
replySubsequent events show concerns of monopolization were misplaced.
> The FTC isn't there to stop corporations from making mistakes.
replyThat's not the point parent is trying to make either, but FTC was supposed to prevent detrimental anti-competitive and monopolistic behaviors, which that very much was.
I don't think you can view the horrific performance of MSFT's gaming division as an example of successful anticompetitive behavior. It is not in any way sustainable, as demonstrated by their slash and burn actions now.
replyAnd you're arguing that FTC should only act against potentially successful anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior? Who cares how high the chance of "success" (from Microsoft's POV), shitty behaviour is shitty behaviour, regardless or not if it's successful.
replyYes, let's penalize entities for pre-crime. What could possibly be wrong with that? /s
replyProsecutable anticompetitive behavior doesn't require success or not. Antitrust law forbids "attempted monopolization" doesn't matter if the monopolist succeeds or not. Its about intent and systemic harm, and slash and burn tactics does often run afoul of antitrust laws. Its structural risk to the market, not precrime.
replyThe FTC's role is to block mergers where the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or tend to create a monopoly." Merger review by design is predictive.
Microsoft EEE at its best: gobble up all game studios and then kill them.
reply"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" isn't applicable at all in this context though?
Yes, in this case it's a slightly different (and much more common) strategy - EEE was a bit of a Microsoft trademark but we see what's happening here much more widely, especially by massive companies as well as with PE. I'd say it'd be better described as AEE - Acquire, Enshittify, Extinguish...
replyOf course not, but most folks poking at Microsoft are just borrowing their opinion from other people and regurgitating it for karma. I'm happy to crap on MS for bad decisions, but the constant "herp derp EEE" gets tired fast.
replyEEE requires them to have succeeded to extinguish, not just be incompetent as to close them down.
replyI don’t think that applies here. They don’t have a monopoly on gaming, there are major competitors in the space, from Sony and Nintendo, as well as Steam/Indie devs. Buying some studios might be anticompetitive in some minor ways, for instance if you’re a huge elder scrolls or fallout fan, but there’s just too many games out there for that to possibly be a viable strategy at a macroscopic level.
reply