“Microsoft was responsible for the error.”

  • @UrLogicFails@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    391 year ago

    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.

    • HarkMahlberg
      link
      fedilink
      221 year ago

      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!

    • @Ubermeisters@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      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.

    • .:\dGh/:.
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      That dangerous part was up to the FTC to prove and they couldn’t.

      • @Audacity9961@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        12
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.