• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    252
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Capture and kill…

    The only thing better than owning the competition, is putting them out of business.

    So they buy studios that compete, fire all the workers, keep the IPs, and call it a day.

    If we enforced anti-monoply laws this wouldn’t be a thing. But monopolies dontate a lot of money to politicians so they say monopolies aren’t a big deal.

    • Ilflish@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      7 months ago

      People tried to block the Activision acquisition. Some were mocked for their attempt and some were mocked for their stance. It wasn’t enforced because for all the attempts, it couldn’t be proved which is more an indicator better definitions needed to be in place

  • (⬤ᴥ⬤)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    185
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    INVESTORS INVESTORS LOOK AT HOW MANY STUDIOS WE CAN BUY LOOK LOOK WE’RE SOOO PROFITABLE
    two hours later
    WERE REMOVING SO MUCH DEAD WEIGHT INVESTORS LOOK WE’RE GOING TO BE SO PROFITABLE AFTER THIS

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Reduce the number of studios. The number of sold copies of games stays constant. Therefore, the money going to the remaining studios goes up.

      If the cost of purchasing the studio is less than the number of diverted sales, its in your interest to buy up and shut down competition. The only reason this math would change is if people exclusively purchased from the shut-down studios. And we all know why they don’t.

      As a kicker, you can wring some extra cash out of old properties by turning them into shitty reskinned Pay2Win mobile games covered in the flesh mask of the old IP.

      • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Therefore, the money going to the remaining studios goes up.

        LOL

        People believe this shit? The money goes directly to some CX or some manegement asshole or chair or board or fucking whatever. What studios? What devs?

      • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        Or license it to a third party studio who does a great job, puts out a quality product, then gets bought out and gutted.

  • Itsamelemmy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Microsoft has been a fucking blight on gaming. Paid online, and timed exclusives both started there. No resale if we didn’t throw a massive fit about it. Buying up studios to kill them. I mean Sony has their share of being fucks as well, but at least they’re making good games. Microsoft has barely any decent games the last 2 generations, and hellblade 2 which is looking great was a Sony game that they had to buy and make exclusive.

        • Boozilla@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Looks at ballot.

          “Is carbonite, like…an actual thing? Can I be frozen like Han Solo? I have a little bit of money saved up. Which stupid tech bro startup can do this for me?”

            • dot0@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 months ago

              wait so the bodies are frozen after the person has already died?

              I thought the point was to get frozen while still alive so that you could be thawed out in the future and continue living. which, while still very stupid, is something I can wrap my head around as a concept.

              am I just now learning that the whole thing is predicated on the wish that we will one day be able to reanimate dead people??

              • mynachmadarch@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                7 months ago

                They ideal for most of them is absolutely that they can be frozen while still alive and unfrozen later. We are nowhere near that technology though so most fallback to the second hope. Yes, that is that when they’re unfrozen in the future we can cure whatever it is that killed them. From what I’ve seen in documentaries, most of the people signing up know it’s the world’s furthest longshot, but they figure they’re dead either way, why not take it? Worst that happens is they stay dead but hopefully science learned something from their body at least, best case is they wake up in the 24½th century and keep on truckin.

                • thefartographer@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Also, considering that they need access to freeze things inside of you quickly enough, such as your brain, I think most subjects would prefer that they were dead first.

          • itsgroundhogdayagain
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Let’s ask Ted Williams’s frozen head. What do you think, Ted?

            Ted Williams’s frozen head: …

            Thanks Ted

          • bigkahuna1986
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t have carbonite but for the right price I can pack you into a freezer filled with ice. That should do the trick.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        In a sane country there would be laws to prevent this monopoly shit.

        The problem is that Microsoft is no monopoly in gaming.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          They have the money to basically buy any studio they want if they could, Nintendo and Sony included.

          Their gaming division isn’t a monopoly, but with their parents funding yeah they could be and that’s the problem. They could buy everyone up and leave them selves alone in the market.

          • woelkchen@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Their gaming division isn’t a monopoly, but with their parents funding yeah they could be and that’s the problem.

            I agree it’s a problem but without Microsoft being a monopoly in gaming, no watchdog will do anything about it.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              The FTC was trying to do something. Than Microsoft convinced them they weren’t going to do X if they sold Y, so they let the cloud gaming go, and then immediately did what they said they wouldn’t.

              If they didn’t lie to the FTC they would have done something about it than and there.

              It’s not a monopoly until it is, and that’s what they are trying to avoid, stuff getting to that point in the first place.

                • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 months ago

                  Yes, they let the cloud gaming go so the EU wouldn’t deem them a monopoly, they than told the FTC they weren’t going to lay anyone off. And a month later or so they laid off 2000 employees while using the excuse it was happening anyways regardless of the merger.

                  What other merger was there you could be confusing this with?

          • woelkchen@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            So you want to do something about it after they are a monopoly?

            Me? Why me? You were talking about countries and I was explaining that countries don’t apply monopoly laws to non-monopolies.

            • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Actually the laws are meant to apply BEFORE that happens.

              What good is trying to stop a monopoly after it’s fully established? You need to deal with it when it starts, not when it’s done.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      They wanted to be the new Sony and Nintendo combined, but instead they’re the new EA.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Trying to force online only as well. That nearly killed an entire console generation for them.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Microsoft has barely any decent games the last 2 generations

      I remember buying the XBox and only ever owning Halo for years, because the rest of the library was utter shit. Then Halo got too popular and Microsoft had to gut the talent and sell the husk for scraps.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      You say, “timed exclusives” as a negative meanwhile Nintendo dominates the market and never releases its exclusives.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    its clear in hindsight that there needs to be more regulation to prevent buyouts of competitors and more protections for workers under buyouts/mergers such as paying workers for at least 3 years after the sale of a company.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        3 gives people time to wrap up projects, move etc, basically any life most folks could have reasonably scheduled can be shifted in 3 years, it gives new parents time to take care of their kid and transition back to normal work. And the way to do it would be to have the companies pay the wages whether they lay them off or not (encouraging retraining rather than layoffs.)

        Although if what you wanted to do was was absolutely ruin the incentives that mergers create for layoffs the average appointment length of a CEO might do it.

  • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    7 months ago

    Microsoft is buying up companies to stockpile IP. Simple as that.

    Then they have a lot of redundant workers so they let them go, leaving the IP in their hands to be filed away for potential lawsuits against infringers.

  • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    7 months ago

    This exact method is how Microsoft became a giant in the first place. They’ve been doing it for longer than I live and they’ll likely outlive me doing it.

  • Noite_Etion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    7 months ago

    Watch as they still milk them to death.

    They cannot improve these games, give them meaningful updates or expansions. But they have killed many of their competitors and further monopolised the industry.

    The second Microsoft gains a market majority in the gaming industry they will employ as many scummy tactics as possible to wring every cent out of people.

    • zib@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      7 months ago

      Basically the old EA approach. They don’t seem to realize that EA never restored their reputation from those days. But, I guess they don’t care as long as they can show a line going ever upward for the shareholders.

  • MSids@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    7 months ago

    The subscription model is, in my opinion, dumb. If they need it to work, maybe they should buy games instead of studios. I can’t work out exactly how long term patching would work though, unless they kicked back a maintenance fee from sales and gamepass usage to the studio.

    • pacoboyd@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Back in the day, devs used to not release games until they were done. Patches were bascially unheard of.

      • cassie 🐺@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        I will say, these days it’s more or less impossible to release a game that’ll run perfectly on every system and it’s a good thing we’re able to fix crashes and patch issues as they come up. This has naturally had its downsides as publishers squeeze devs for tighter releases, but outside of that it’s a very good thing for devs and players.

      • sibannac@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It would be a bad look and there were anologue standards at play then. Digital releases and the capacity of storage mediums really pushed releasing unfinished games over the edge.

    • SecretPancake@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I don’t know how the contracts look but games on Apple Arcade get support years after release. It does work somehow.

      • MSids@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        It must work like the music streaming model where Apple kicks back a fee to the devs based on monthly installs or usage to the dev. It probably works better than Microsoft’s model of buying a developer, not committing resources to run them, then closing the studio.

  • Hadriscus@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    7 months ago

    ah, yes, the highest market cap in history ($3T) doesn’t have the resources

    • ryper@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Well, you see, they don’t have cash on hand because they spent it on stock buybacks to boost that market cap

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    they did this with the t-mobile sidekick… they bought the platform and all data outright… then ‘oops! we lost all your end-user, cloud stored data, sorry! we were just too busy to do our jobs!’

    thanks, microsoft.